BoatBanter.com - Cramming Religion Down Throats

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/19/13, 8:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/19/13, 3:46 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/19/13, 12:26 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote:
Tim wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:

I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you
did. But I

do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for

several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a

violation of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment?

How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the
right of

and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms?

First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to

church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and

everyone else you can. Terrific.

Why would you encourage foul gun play?

Sarcasm,

Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke.

We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is
there but sarcasm?

Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but
be against healthcare for everybody?

They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance?
Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance,
and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just
ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by
the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory
begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and
lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take
care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they
did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like
they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations
would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most
likely yourself also.

You obviously have *no* idea of what I am for, in health care
"insurance." What I am for is a single-payer system that keeps health
care insurers out of the equation, ala Medicare, although it might be
possible to allow health care insurers to provide "supplemental"
coverages to those who want them. I also have no use for privately owned
"for profit" hospitals.

You are for a health insurance formulated plan, with everybody forced to
buy health insurance! May not be a bad idea, but the way this plan is
organized is.

Let me rephrase a bit. I am for a health care system that doesn't involve
private, for-profit insurance companies, except, possibly, to offer
"supplemental" programs. I think what we have now through the ACA is the
first step. I think it will lead to single-payer, eventually, and then
evolve into an "indirect" payer system, in which everyone in the country
can get needed health care without worrying about whether he or she can
pay for it directly. Virtually every other modern country in the western
world has such a system.

Here's an interesting anecdote. A friend of mine has a serious illness
and requires a very expensive medication to stay alive. That medication,
even with help from his health insurance company, costs him nearly $3000 a month.

That *same* medication in Canada would run him about $100 a month and, in
several European countries, even less.

He's working on a way to obtain his needed meds from a pharmacy in Canada.

Part of that cost is the good old USA pays for all the development costs!
Europe and Canada only allow manufacturing costs plus a decent profit. So
we pay a lot more. Fair, nope, but that is the way the game as been setup.
If everybody had to pay for the development costs, the. The USA would be
cheaper and EU ann Canada would pay more. But we as a country are idiots
when it comes to trade agreements, why we allowed China to fix the Yuan
way below market value. But when other countries hold enough of our debt,
they get to set most of the rules.

We pay a lot more because a few years ago, the Congressional Republicans
wouldn't let the government negotiate for pharmaceutical prices for many
programs, and hasn't legalized the ability for individuals to buy across
our northern border. Republicans say they are for free enterprise but, of
course, they aren't. What a surprise.

Someone has to pay development costs. Or did the corporations do it for
grins?