RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 5:56:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. (He's lying again). You mean you don't believe that the doctors are sharing their pay stubs with DK. That is just shocking. I am sure they not only tell him how much money they make, they also show him their stock portfolios and ask advice. And as far as him having to pay out the ass for decent care, well he is under the CMS umbrella so that doesn't surprise me a bit. It's just a shame he blames the insurance companies and can't see it's his own government that is screwing him over.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 7:45:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. So, you're not a Doctor. What kind of costs do those 80%'s have to cover, Ken?

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 7:49:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Were taxes increased when they initially started the public care in Italy? Most of what has been discussed on these boards has been the NIH, and that is a separate category. You probably know there is no way to answer this question, and it is also a nonsense because everything has to be compared in costs vs benefits. Aniway... I suppose when in 1934 a mandatory insurance system (different from the ACA as the contributions were proportional to the income) was introduced it was a new expense but when in the 1978 the system was nationalized costs decreased. Can you show proof of costs decreasing? Please? And, what costs decreased? Did cost of individual treatments and services decrease, or just the aggregate amount of money spent? quote: You are now paying for a private insurance what's the difference for you in paying a tax? is it just a matter of principle? The difference is I can choose not to purchase insurance if I don't want to, without losing my personal freedom. Not really the case with taxes. And, I can also tailor my insurance to my needs.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 7:50:30 AM)
can you show costs going up dramatically? can you show anything?

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 8:58:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. So, you're not a Doctor. What kind of costs do those 80%'s have to cover, Ken? The same costs as my 20%. Why do you think there is any difference? Do you think my checks go some place different?

eulero83 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 10:34:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Can you show proof of costs decreasing? Please? And, what costs decreased? Did cost of individual treatments and services decrease, or just the aggregate amount of money spent? I can give this proof: in the 1977 the national insurnce entities were broken and since the national health service was created the people didn't boke. quote: The difference is I can choose not to purchase insurance if I don't want to, without losing my personal freedom. Not really the case with taxes. And, I can also tailor my insurance to my needs. are you aware you can't decide what disease or medical conditions you'll be affected by?

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 1:43:01 PM)
Can you show proof of costs decreasing? Please? When the "proof" is provided it never includes the tax money spent so it is always apples and gravel.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 1:44:00 PM)
Of course it does. Tax is part of our GNP.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 2:56:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. So, you're not a Doctor. What kind of costs do those 80%'s have to cover, Ken? The same costs as my 20%. Why do you think there is any difference? Do you think my checks go some place different? Right. So, your 20% and Medicare's 80% covers what costs, then?

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 3:02:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Can you show proof of costs decreasing? Please? And, what costs decreased? Did cost of individual treatments and services decrease, or just the aggregate amount of money spent? I can give this proof: in the 1977 the national insurnce entities were broken and since the national health service was created the people didn't boke. I don't understand what you wrote here. quote: quote: The difference is I can choose not to purchase insurance if I don't want to, without losing my personal freedom. Not really the case with taxes. And, I can also tailor my insurance to my needs. are you aware you can't decide what disease or medical conditions you'll be affected by? Certainly. But, I do know that I'm not going to have any more babies, so there is no need for me to spend money to cover that. I'm also highly unlikely to require birth control (being a single male, odds are high that I'll be able to get by without them), etc. If I present a lower risk to an insurance company, why should I have to subsidize people with higher risks?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 3:44:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. (He's lying again). Would you like to start paying my share? I'm getting pretty sick of them myself. Before you do, every dialysis treatment is $50 (just my share) 3 x week. plus weekly doctors visit with the nephrologist that's another $75 plus my meds (roughly $200 a month until September when part D catastrophic kicks in) plus I see my PCP every quarter (another $25). Luckily I made a good living so my SSD, my disability insurance plus my savings lets me pay that and still cover the rent. Most people on dialysis are on both Medicare and Medicaid. His lips were moving....more proof he was lying.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 3:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. So, you're not a Doctor. What kind of costs do those 80%'s have to cover, Ken? The same costs as my 20%. Why do you think there is any difference? Do you think my checks go some place different? Massage parlors. (Liars lie).

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 4:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Do you have your own practice now, Doctor Ken? I pay 20% of those bills. I know precisely how much those doctors get. If you think it's low you're welcome to take my bills off my hands. So, you're not a Doctor. What kind of costs do those 80%'s have to cover, Ken? The same costs as my 20%. Why do you think there is any difference? Do you think my checks go some place different? Right. So, your 20% and Medicare's 80% covers what costs, then? Payroll, rent, equipment, debt, living expenses etc. What do you think they cover?

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 4:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 try 12000, I can't think of a country where tuition is less than 10 grand a year [:D] University of california med school is free for california residents.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 5:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll be blunt, the sort of docs that are doing that are the worst sort. The rates are not low. Say YOU were King Obama How much would you allow a doctor to earn... er, steal from your comrades One has to wonder how a $12 an hour broom pusher is in favor of doctors making more money so that his $12 an hour will buy less.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/10/2014 5:23:13 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD You mean you never run out of other peoples money. Or do you mean that tax money doesn't count? What it means is that you think everyone is a fucking moron. Everyone is quite aware that it is tax money. Did you think you were so fucking smart and everyone else so stupid that no one knew that? Compare that part of your taxes that go to pay for medical and contrast that with what you are paying now in premiums. Now unless you are one of those who had no insurance you would be paying less.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 6:31:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Payroll, rent, equipment, debt, living expenses etc. What do you think they cover? How much are their costs, dumbass? What does your "not low" charges pay for?

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 6:42:06 AM)
What the fuck does this have to do with other than nutsackerism? It has been established that costs or no, most US doctors make more than their counterparts around the world, with a few exceptions in specialists. Why the fuck we running costs? Cost are going to be more here, because you have insurance companies that have to grab their pie.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 7:03:56 AM)
Certainly. But, I do know that I'm not going to have any more babies, so there is no need for me to spend money to cover that. I'm also highly unlikely to require birth control (being a single male, odds are high that I'll be able to get by without them), etc. If I present a lower risk to an insurance company, why should I have to subsidize people with higher risks? Perhaps because that is exactly how insurance works. For you to act like you do not know that just shows how disingenuous your post are.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/11/2014 7:20:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Either that, or to set up a way for individual rights are protected. Since the latter is the reason we declared our independence from England (From the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"), it would seem that "pursuing the public interest" isn't really the reason for government. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,* and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. quote: You can reject the truth all you want. The Declaration of Independence spelled out the reasoning behind why the colonies were separating from England. The Declaration spelled out why governments are instituted. The US Constitution spells out the authorities granted to the Federal Government of the USA. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. quote: I've stated before that there is no authority granted by the US Constitution for it to provide for the health care of the Citizens. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. quote: And, since it's not there, the Federal Government hasn't the authority. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. quote: I don't give a fuck what's strange to other countries. The idea of a Republican form of government was pretty strange back in the late 1700's, too. You do not seem to be on a first name bassis with history. Most any moron knows that republics date at least as far back as rome...but then you are not just any fucking moron now are you? quote: Perhaps you trust your government more than we do over here. You may have good reason for that, too. If you do not like the government in my country why don't you get your fat fucking ass out? quote: But, I do believe there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for the Federal Government to have the authority to do that. That is because you are a fucking moron who does not have the first inkling of a clue about the constitution of my country.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125