Religious Freedomz in the USA
 

So he will now be taxing churches too?

Same rules. Good luck with that one.

great idea! tax them, other than money received that's actually used for charitable purposes.

I would love it if all churches lost their 501C status. Where did Obama ask to tax churches?

The cartoon says same rules.
Would you also love if tax deductible charitable donations went away?

charity should remain as it is. but we all know that charities do not only use donations for charitable works. anything spent on other than charity, churches included, should be taxed.
the money that goes to the huge fancy church buildings should be taxed. fancy facades aren't charitable. neither is high end cabinetry or fixtures. money for church vans? tax it. let the church actually show their charitable donations like the rest of us for their tax breaks. otherwise, they are a business with employees and property, just like all other businesses.

I wouldn't mind at all. Wouldn't change my charitable donation rate. What 'Zig said, though. Churches can show their "charity" for deduction like everyone else, and pay taxes on the rest at the business rate.

Might not change your donation plans, but I will tell you the people giving away millions and millions of dollars to charities (either partly or mostly) because they have to for the break, it would change they way they do things. A lot of research is funded that way. We should try it though, I am certain the tax increase would go directly to paying down our debt and helping out those in need. :zz:

That money has already been taxed if you take away the donation write-off. Tax on tax on tax on tax. Always the solution.

This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t.

Health insurance is not some gift your employer gives you out of the goodness of the employer's heart. It's part of your compensation package. It's part of your pay. When an employer says he is not going to cover certain things because it morally offends him, what he is saying is that he is choosing to pay you less, because he disapproves of how you might choose to spend the money he pays you.

It's no different than an employer saying since he's morally opposed to gambling, he's going to cut your wages so you can't afford to gamble anymore.

Really, ladies, it's for your own good. Your boss knows what's best for you, and he'll cut your salary to prove it. Because that's how much he cares about you.

I agree with virtually everything you say. But once you force that employer to pay that part of your pay everything changes. Once you demand something from that employer you take away the employers right to pay their employees as they wish. An employer should absolutely have the right to cut someones pay if they feel like it for whatever reason they want, employee A doesn't like it employee A can leave. Simple.

Then is the claim of conscientious objector bullsh*t?

Until indentured slavery is brought back one has the freedom to choose one's employer.

Besides who would want to work for a bullsh*t employer anyway?

:tro:

Republicans: anti-woman, anti-gay, watch former voters walk away.

That's why I said, "what 'Zig said".

Yes, they can't petition the federal government and state they want zero of their tax dollars going to the US war machine. They simply can't do that. For me it's a bit scary as someone who needs drugs to continue to live like me that religions can start getting into the business of determining which USDA approved drugs are allowed to be insured. That's heading down a path you really don't want to go down. But really we are already there as the "death Panels" thing was hilarious. They have been there forever always. Called Health Insurance Companies. Medical Bankruptcy is a uniquely American thing.

Well, I'm not sure this is entirely true. I have what is known as a pre-existing condition and without drugs I would die within a year. I am very lucky right now to have medical coverage through my employment so I can still feed my kids. Without coverage I would go broke. Although the ACA is rancid horse crap and not single payer which is the ONLY logical option, the ACA did mention something about continued coverage for "pre-existing" conditions so as rancid as it is it is maybe a hair better than the rancidness currently in place. No one is required to cover my "pre-existing" condition I believe. So to say I have 35 million employment opportunities to find coverage I need isn't really being honest...keeping health care coverage is the new indentured slavery so to speak...it's a matter of life and death for me. For profit health insurance companies need to be vaporized completely. It's a sad situation.

(in the real world, the "employer" chooses you, not vice versa as you stated. you don't walk into a business and state, "I'm starting work here tomorrow at 8 am and here is how much you are paying me." Normally you have to apply for a job, go through an interview process, and the employer makes his/her choice. You only have the freedom to choose where you apply, you have to get chosen.)

And replaced by what? Government run healthcare? They cannot even handle the mail correctly.

I tend to disagree. The mail service has been 100 percent accurate in my lifetime getting my payments of bills to large corporations. I mean 100 percent, zero have failed to make it there. They've all been cashed. In turn also 100 percent accuracy getting the bills from large corporations to me. Mom gets her Christmas package every single year...100 percent accuracy. Unbelievably good getting stuff from point A to pont B and they go places privatized places don't go. they may not make any money and lose a ton, but they handle the mail 100 percent correctly in my opinion. I view mail as the stuff that needs to get from point A to point B. Others may take a different view of it. So that is fine. By my perspective, they do what they do quite well.

Absolutely government run health care. It would end up way cheaper in the long run. Medicare for all.

IN essence clip clop what is usually being promoted by old men or being spewed in the media is usually 100 percent false. When Catholic Bishops in America start whining about "religious freedom" being taken away, you can be assured the complete opposite is true. What the law actually does is allow for more "religious freedom". AS a result of this law, what percent of catholics in AMerica would be prohibited from devoutly following their religious doctrine as defined by the Vatican or US Conference of Catholic Bishops? the answer to that question is easy, zero percent. Every single catholic in America can follow their religion 100 percent devoutly as a result of this law. And that in turn is what infuriates the bishops so much. They know this. It also simply allows for the "religious freedom" of the thousands upon thousands of non-catholics hired by the catholic institutions operating in the public shpere to be taken into account. It allows for a poor non-catholic woman to get some financial relief for trying to avoid the pure evil of abortion which she has heard from these bishops all her life. This controversy is simply a scam of epic proportions. Catholic institutions providing "religious" services only are certainly exempt from this law.

Also with the media now incessantly pounding the "IRan threat" 24-7, you know exactly the opposite is true. Iran is zero threat to this country.

:tro:....I'll vouch for that...

How long do you think the medical world would survive while "not making any money and losing a ton"? Think anyone will want to be a Dr.? Think pharmaceutical companies will continue to make wonder drugs that keep you alive? Wake up.

knowing how rampant fraud is with the current medicare/caid set up, i cringe to think what would happen if everyone were in such a system.

it's already getting difficult to find doctors who will accept medicare/caid. the amount of money they will make vs the amount of work involved to accept those patients is becoming untenable for most doctors. so many are opting not to accept more patients who use those two coverages.

the cost of medical care in this country has exploded, while our health hasn't gotten any better. ACA isn't the problem solver, with premiums shooting thru the roof and medicaid set to drain more than the proposed medicare savings.

medicare and medicaid need revamping, as does SS. when SS began, almost no one got it. now, almost everyone does with most taking out 3X or more what they put in. that's what you call an impossible scenario to continue. the new york times recently ran that story-look it up.

Religious Freedomz in the USA
 

:$::$::$::$:


Ocala Mike

What are you talking about? If everyone had Medicare, health care would still be provided by private hospitals, doctors, etc. They wouldn't be broke. Pharmaceutical companies would still develop drugs. What would be removed is simply the price gouging.

What do you think is "rampant"? What percentage of Medicare claims do you think are fraudulant? There's fraud, certainly, but I'd hardly describe it as "rampant". Medicare is an outstandingly cost-efficient and reliable insurance system. It's done very, very well. Adding multiple-millions of healthy, young individuals to it will only continue to bring costs down for everyone, while services - and payments to providers - can be expanded. And the jobs created will be massive. A win-win-win for everyone. And we can be just like other first world countries, instead of 27th and worse in health care quality and provisions.

Health care in the United States is our national embarrassment. Except for our Medicare system, which is outstanding and remarkably successful. Few receive health care in the US, and its the most expensive in the world, while not even in the top twenty in quality by any measurement. We can do better for ourselves.

:tro::tro::tro:

C'mon, you are a Dr. If you had to go through all kinds of govt red tape to get paid what they thought was fair for what you were doing would you? Do you let clients decide what procedures should cost? Of course not.

from a GAO article from a year ago"

GAO has designated Medicare and Medicaid as high-risk programs because they are particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and improper payments (payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount). Medicare is considered high-risk in part because of its complexity and susceptibility to improper payments, and Medicaid because of concerns about the adequacy of its fiscal oversight to prevent inappropriate spending. In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments



70 billion improperly paid in one year alone. that is absolutely dreadful.

It is, but they changed the definition of "improper", too:

But now they do.

4% is too high, but that's not "rampant". That's 96% proper payments made. And other safeguards were put into the program in 2010. The ACA cuts $500 billion in 10 years in duplication.

Right now, human doctors have tons of staff dedicated only to cutting through the red tape of the various insurance companies. They hate it. Insurance companies dictate the actual practice of medicine - what a doctor can do for a patient - by what they will reimburse for or not. Private insurance companies dictate what tests will be reimbursed for what coded conditions, and how much that will be, and what tests will NOT be covered for certain conditions.

Medicare is a piece of cake compared to that. If doctors offices only had to deal with one insurance reimbursement agency, rather than multiple different ones, they would be thrilled!

Insurance companies only pay "what they think is fair" (or what they negotiate with the network the doctor is in) exactly as the Medicare network does. And that nice huge profit margin goes, not to us, but to the insurance company.

Medicare costs only about 9% for administration, and that is comparable to what other first world countries cost to insure their citizens. Private insurance companies are 17% of our GDP. That's outrageous. That's why we have the most expensive health care in the world - without even having all our citizens covered, and without providing the best outcomes in the world!

Except Obamacare just changed one thing: now insurance companies must spend 80% of patient premiums on patient health care - not insurance company profit.

Yeah free health care for all with no deductibles...and if there are deductibles then absolutely no indemnity plans to cover that deductible.

F.uck 'em. No exchange of dollars. What do you think this is? A democracy? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why does Medicare lose money? Why even though millions pay into something they will never use they still manage to not have enough to cover those using it?

Because it's designed to be that way. You can never pay enough. The government decides who gets what - unlike your own money (a.k.a. what the government does not confiscate) which you can spend however you like.

You know - like the 47 million food stamp recipients who buy beer and cigarettes with their "own" money after the sucker of a taxpayer pays for the rest of what they have in the checkout line.

The government approach is always to take from one group and give that which it took to another group, less the non-trivial fee for processing and handling.

All hail the recipient!

just wait and see what happens if the PPUCA stays on the books. i know it s supposed to be aca, but it will end up unaffordable.
the CBO estimated that six million people covered in small groups will have their employers drop their coverage. that the employer would fint it cheaper to pay the penalty and let their workers go thru a exchange.
however, it is possible that up to 30 million would end up in the exchange. that causes the est. of less than a trillion in new cost over ten yearzs to go well over that, one trillion being the 'magic number' congress had said would make or break the vote.
also, in arkansas for an example, anyone want to guess what percentage of this states total population will qualify for a subsidy? averqage subsidy is five thousand a year. 70~75 percent. because the feds have made an average income chart for income.
now, we all know that cost of living varies widely.
oh...and medicaid? rolls will almost double. right now those up to 75 percent above the fed. poverty level are eligible. it goes to 133 percent above trhat. who will pay for that? most states are already in deep financial straits.

I like your acronym better: PPUCA, pronounced P-PUKE-AH

Note the date, but still applicable. Yes, the programs need some fixing. They always do. Expecting a medical insurance program set up decades ago to be applicable to todays health insurance industry, especially the most expensive in the world, twice as expensive as other countries, is silly. These programs are outstandingly successful, having saved millions of lives over the years by enabling seniors to get health care. No, the programs do not need to be completely thrown out. That would be absurd. The ACA removes millions (that means millions in savings) in Medicare duplication over the next 10 years. That's an excellent start.

It also provides health care to seniors at half the cost of private health insurance, thus saving us all money. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world - it's a disaster. We are the only country in the world whose health care system is owned by private insurance companies. Medicare for all would fix that.