Speakeasy forum: About the Catholic charities question

Since the state requires a license and was paying most of the costs, it gets to make the rules. If the service was provided with funding from charitable donations, adoptions services should be permitted to do as it wished. My own disappointment is in wondering whose needs government thinks should come first. Is it the prospective parents who are wanting the child or the child in need good parents?

It was Democratic governors that made these decisions, and not Republicans and it's the Republicans that are upset about this service being shut down. I appreciate Steven finding the information before I could because for a couple of days I wasn't able to follow thru due to the reply link being broken here. I'm still convinced that the WH started this on a personal level, just as BO's lacky Carney claimed BO wasn't 'really' behind stopping the Keystone Pipeline a few months ago and BO blamed it on the Republicans, and yet BO turned around two days ago and strong armed his Senate Dems into turning down the vote to take BO out of the decision equation. I don't believe anything that comes out of this WH and if BO's lips are moving, he's lying.

I've never expressed anything differently.

The economic issue IS the campaign, unfortunately, the candidates keep getting sucked into the social issues by various media and debate moderators who are liberals effectively deflecting them...at least for now. They'll figure that out and get back on track. I'm not worried about that.

Health care is NOT a right...it IS a privilege.

Religion should not depend on the government to fund its activities, anymore than Planned Parenthood should. The only activities the government should fund regarding religion is medical for clinics and hospitals just as they do any other....and they should continue to be exempt from birth control/abortions just as they always have been based on religious freedom....which is not legislated per se by the government...it's written into our Constitution and has always been their right.

Are you of the mind set that health care is a right? If so, where is that written?

Mark, did Toni say that? Or was it Grim offering his opinion by saying "It appears that the your view is that health care is not only NOT a right..."?
You may wish to attack Toni, but let's be a little more fair. Taking something somebody else said about Toni and then using it as a base for saying "you're saying" and adding on to what Toni thinks seems to me to be unfair.

And I don't know that it can be. We'd need to determine who has the authority to affirm this and, if affirmed, whose requirement it is to provide it and who is responsible for outcomes are not acceptable. We'd need to define the term "health care" first so that we know what the components of heath care are and what might be categorized differently. Thus far, all we can really point to in the way of law is that which we cannot do. Law does not permit the causing of bodily harm nor the denial of treatment for such harm as has been done.

While our current president seems to want to take this on as a project, others have already tried but failed. I doubt we'll have the question fully answered anytime soon.

That's how I read your statement, "Health care is NOT a right...it IS a privilege. "

And of course you are right, people do not get good health care of they have no insurance. They get state health care which must be a lot worse than privately funded health care. Otherwise, why have privately funded health care at all?

In the UK and in much of Europe, good health care is a right. It is not just for the privileged. I'm glad I am here and not over there.

Mark

O.k., Mark, now I see it. Now - people might require health to live, but they also require other things like food and shelter. With discussions such at this a person having a "right" comes up. In many cases, including this particular one, the "right" means "legal right". This brings up the written guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. Some people may mean written legal right, and others may reply arguing about a moral right, or "human right".
I think your saying "Nice society you have there" was a sarcastic statement attempting to imply negative things about the society in the U.S. But consider it in the light of legal rights given in the laws of the Constitution. O.K. , if is is a case of Toni talking about specific rights spelled out in out constitution, it does not specifically give the right to health, but neither does it give it for food or shelter.
Couldn't you say the same about other countries? It's not a matter or not wanting their people to have any of them, but just a matter of them not saying exactly that in the wording of their basic legal documents. With a discussion of health care, something that was done or is proposed to do be done the question of that action is discussed in the light of existing legal "rights" and its agreement with the Constitution of the U.S. A health care law is obviously a "legal" thing, so in that discussion the use of the word "legal" would seem to imply the written law legal rather than "moral". meaning

what would be considered to be an "avoidable health issue". I would probably consider such as immunizations and other forms of preventive services to be in that category but there are certainly those risks which are avoidable by individual choice. One who deliberately puts himself in peril without good reason might have some susplainin' to do before coming in for free help.

And those engaged in activities which promote it's spread?

Grim, with such a system, you could find that many drug addictions could be classed as "avoidable". That could lead with problems for attempting to help crack, heroin, etc. addicts. Just before this post you said "Those who depend on the state to provide health care should still expect a minimum level of service designed to prevent death and/or pain.". This also could cause the old unintended consequences situation to come into play. Many people have trouble walking without pain due to a bad hip or knee. They may have dealt with this for years. They still walked, but many times it caused them pain. Should the state be required to offer artificial hips or knees to all such people depending on the state to provide health care? Then there are other conditions that may not be life threatening, but cause pain. Some of the medical procedures for them may not be covered by an insured person's particular insurance policy. So in such a case should the insured person be provided that procedure by the state? Sometimes, there are no set, easy answers.

>>>>is that it is the responsibility of the government of every civilization to provide for the minimum welfare of its citizens. >>>>

This is another method to 'share the wealth' when you stop to think about about who PAYS the government and if the government works for US, then every citizen should have a say so in where that money goes. Citizens already pay for others to have health care for free (clinics, hospitals, etc) everytime one of us has to go to a hospital because the bills are inflated by a minimum of $1000 per visit in order to cover those who come in without insurance. That's in addition to tax money going toward Medicaid that pays for prescriptions, glasses, dental, office visits, etc. We also, via taxes, pay for their shelter, food, utility bills, and other needs.

Although I don't believe that health care is a 'right' because too many take advantage of a good thing and become slugs in society with the 'entitlement' mentality, I don't have a problem with those truly in need being taken care of by 'government'....it's when it becomes MANDATED as a 'right' by a few individuals and consequently becomes a LAW that I have a problem with it.

that the employer doesn't HAVE to supply insurance to his employees...it's a benefit that is the boss's choice to make. Now the government is MANDATING that they do or pay a fine for each employee they don't cover. There were very few companies I worked for throughout my 'career' that offered insurance...I had to manage my paycheck enough to pay for that myself or go without knowing that hospitals had to treat me anyhow and pay out of pocket for a doctor's visit and prescriptions. I sincerely believe that the more companies gave, the more the employees came to 'expect' and in some cases actually demanded it and refused to take a job that didn't pony up or they banded together to form a union and force it.

As for the government 'not paying for the insurance, the company is', that's not necessarily true either. WE are the government via our taxes, so WE are paying via Medicaid handouts through the States and Medicare through the Federal Government. The governments (state and federal) take if from our hand and give it to others at their discretion.

to be expected to ask their employees if they'd like coverage for such services that the institution considered to be immoral.