The White House has begun an aggressive campaign to use approaching Supreme Court arguments on the new health care law as a moment to build support for the measure seen as President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, hoping to shape public opinion on an issue at the center of the battle for the White House and Congress.
On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26....
Jim Lincoln wrote: 1) Mike, I'm sorry I missed this comment. I suppose it is like the motorcycle law we have here in Nebraska, some of them didn't want to wear helmets and it was infringing on their God-given rights to have to do so. However, it also infringes on other people right having to pay the expenses of their injuries when they don't wear them.
2) I know that many Republicans would even want to privatize Social Security. I use to think that was a good idea but after Billy Clinton and Baby Bush this is an impossibility. ---
1) It may be a cold-blooded way of looking at it, but not wearing a helmet more often results in death, wouldn't you agree? How is it more expensive for others to pay when the rider isn't wearing a helmet? When he does wear a helmet, and his body is shredded by rolling down the road, it's ok because his head was protected by a helmet? Perpetual care is less expensive? Bad math, Jim.
2) Privatization, i.e., allowing people to invest a portion of THEIR money as they see fit IS a good thing. The noise against it is merely the corrupt politicians cry to keep the "contributions" coming in, so they can immediately spend it elsewhere, and not invest it for the contributor's sake.
Mike, I'm sorry I missed this comment. I suppose it is like the motorcycle law we have here in Nebraska, some of them didn't want to wear helmets and it was infringing on their God-given rights to have to do so. However, it also infringes on other people right having to pay the expenses of their injuries when they don't wear them.
I know that many Republicans would even want to privatize Social Security. I use to think that was a good idea but after Billy Clinton and Baby Bush this is an impossibility. One forgets that many of these captains of business were trained in their homes, through college the Greek Letter system, and their friends in business to be white collar criminals, neither of those Presidents nor many of their underlings were Christian. Even trying to get government,which we are suppose to have some control over,regulators to regulate seems to be extremely hard, Two-thirds of Dodd-Frank still not in place. So, some certainly to S.S. and ACA needs to be provided by something other than free enterprise greed. I've always said, "Greed Works!" should be the U.S. motto, but in some cases it doesn't.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- but as I have pointed out about the conservative origins of Obamacare--- Just think health care as an inalienable right in a thoughtful democracy.
CNS 12/11/11"A section of the report authored by Butler recommended that: 'Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.'"
"Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan," the Heritage report said. "The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.
This plan described by Stuart Butler at the Heritage Foundation did not catch fire with conservatives.
By 1993, when First Lady Hillary Clinton was promoting her universal health care plan, the principal advocate in Congress of a federal mandate that individuals buy health insurance was not a conservative, but was Sen. John Chafee, a liberal Republican from Rhode Island. Chafee himself would admit that: "The right was against it."
Waiting for the next lesson in historical revisionism.
Mike, the Republican politicians whored themeselves out to the insurance companies and the Council of Catholic Bishops, they supported health care. (Tell Congress all Americans have to have health care as good as theirs since goodness knows most Americans are worth more than Congressmen!) but as I have pointed out about the Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision and the Conservative Origins of Obamacare. Just think health care as an inalienable right in a thoughtful democracy.
"Since there are so very few good Samaritans among Christians, then the government is going have to step up and do the job. There are costs in living in a country and people do that because there are benefits too."
Source of authority for the government to "step up"? Oh I forgot, we have a nation of men, not of law. Even if there was such source, which there isn't, there is precious little benefit to be had in replicating the decaying European model of government, don't you think? Or should we continue to spend non existent money to enable inefficient government to take care of everybody anyway, cause 2+2 = anything you want it to be, and collapse would never happen here, right? (If it does you can always say it was Bush)
I guess you think all taxes are theft? Since some of the money will be used to fund preventive medicine and procedures, it will save the public as a whole money as well.
It is a benefit to a country, that not only has a healthy population and one that will restore it's population to health.
Since there are so very few good Samaritans among Christians, then the government is going have to step up and do the job. There are costs in living in a country and people do that because there are benefits too.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I wonder how close the Universal Health Care setup matches that of Canada? Much to contrary opinion, Canadians like it! ---
Irrelevant. If stealing from some people to pay wages to self, and benefits to others, is ok for Canadians, that doesn't mean it's ok for others to do such things. Thievery by any other name is still stealing, which as you know is Commandment breaking. Why would any right-thinking Christian support theft?
Obama and his Liberal supporters love to 'wander' from the truth.
Jer 14:10 Thus saith the LORD unto this people, Thus have they loved to wander, they have not refrained their feet, therefore the LORD doth not accept them; he will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins. 11 Then said the LORD unto me, Pray not for this people for their good. 12 When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.
Jer 7:16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.
Dr. Alan Cairns | 7/6/2009
COMMENTS | 
thoughts: "
christopher000
thoughts wrote:
'i'd question whether you've..."
