Jump to content

New health care bill


westend1

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I know nothing about scripture.  However, since it is being quoted frequently in this thread, I wonder if there is any scripture that defines marriage and deals with abortion?

I wonder if there are any that deal with grabbing women by the vaginas?  Or I wonder if all of the above are off topic for this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I wonder if there are any that deal with grabbing women by the vaginas?  Or I wonder if all of the above are off topic for this thread?

I'm still waiting for the scripture that says it's okay to forcibly confiscate money from the haves to support the have-nots. You've adequately shown where it is an individual duty for those who follow the Bible to help the poor, but is it the government's job to forcibly apply this duty to all Americans, especially in a country where freedom OF and FROM religion are both a guaranteed right (as interpreted throughout American history)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm still waiting for the scripture that says it's okay to forcibly confiscate money from the haves to support the have-nots. You've adequately shown where it is an individual duty for those who follow the Bible to help the poor, but is it the government's job to forcibly apply this duty to all Americans, especially in a country where freedom OF and FROM religion are both a guaranteed right (as interpreted throughout American history)?

I guess we all, be it voters or politicians, have to vote our own conscious.  Just a little peculiar to me when the GOP likes to strut around as the keepers of the Word (see most recent executive order), even if they somehow can't accurately pronounce a book in said Word.  I couldn't have voted for this particular legislation but that's just me.  I answer to a higher, non-orange power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I guess we all, be it voters or politicians, have to vote our own conscious.  Just a little peculiar to me when the GOP likes to strut around as the keepers of the Word (see most recent executive order), even if they somehow can't accurately pronounce a book in said Word.  I couldn't have voted for this particular legislation but that's just me.  I answer to a higher, non-orange power.  

Do you think the higher power would advocate for government run single-payer healthcare in which everyone has their wages forcibly confiscated to support the have-nots, or do you think He would support a capitalistic free-market approach in which catastrophic and pre-existing conditions are dealt with by charity organizations? (I don't think it's possible to load a question more than that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Point being selective scripture adherence rather than over all adherence. 

Point being you are profiling if you assume someone's beliefs on a topic based on his belief on another topic.  I would think you of all people wouldn't want to take that route.  I don't subscribe to the "all republicans are racist" line.  Point being that those issues weren't the point of this thread at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Do you think the higher power would advocate for government run single-payer healthcare in which everyone has their wages forcibly confiscated to support the have-nots, or do you think He would support a capitalistic free-market approach in which catastrophic and pre-existing conditions are dealt with by charity organizations? (I don't think it's possible to load a question more than that.)

I think you and I would most definitely disagree on what the Higher Power would advocate ;).  Hopefully we both find out one day on the right side of the gates!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Point being you are profiling if you assume someone's beliefs on a topic based on his belief on another topic.  I would think you of all people wouldn't want to take that route.  I don't subscribe to the "all republicans are racist" line.  Point being that those issues weren't the point of this thread at all. 

I made no assumptions.  I asked a question.   It appears to me that you made an assumption about what you believed I was assuming.  Your avoidance of my question is sufficient as an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I think you and I would most definitely disagree on what the Higher Power would advocate ;).  Hopefully we both find out one day on the right side of the gates!

I'm not so sure we totally disagree about that. I think the Higher Power would advocate for individual freedom to decide to be charitable, and that most people would observe this duty...in which case we would have zero need for government run health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I made no assumptions.  I asked a question.   It appears to me that you made an assumption about what you believed I was assuming.  Your avoidance of my question is sufficient as an answer.

So you asked a question to which you already knew the answer, even though it was off topic of the discussion at hand.  Some might call that trolling my friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

So you asked a question to which you already knew the answer, even though it was off topic of the discussion at hand.  Some might call that trolling my friend!

Like quoting 100 bible scriptures in a topic about Health Care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I wonder if there are any that deal with grabbing women by the vaginas?  Or I wonder if all of the above are off topic for this thread?

Where are these women? Someone inappropriately grab my wife, she will put marks on him herself, then he will be arrested pronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

I would never support President Obama saying that he could grab women by the p. He has two daughters, that alone would prevent him from saying something so asinine.

Did you see his woody video? He's a real pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2017 at 1:05 PM, Tigers2010 said:

It did not help the majority of people.

IT IS NOT MY JOB TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD THEIR OWN PLAN. Do you believe it is fair that I put all my money into college, attended 5 years of school (while working), get a career job only to have to shell out more than I can afford to pay for those who chose not to make life decision to better their financial status?

 

B.S. it helped people with pre-existing conditions who couldnt obtain coverage if they we ill in the past. It also helped people with chronic illnesses. Before the ACA, once the  insurance company spent 3 million dollars on your care, they would kick you off of their plan. It has helped college students by allowing them to stay on their parents health plan until the age of 26. My son hopes to get into medical school, so this is great. It helped the working poor, people who made to much to receive medicaid, but not enough to afford other coverage through Medicaid expansion. How can someone make a  comment about the ACA when they know nothing about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...