Finally. Good riddance to Obamacare.

[Acim]

Free will to purchase does not, however, give you the money to purchase. And I suppose any good Christian would emulate Jesus by saying, "if you can't afford insurance, you should just die." You really shouldn't care about poor people -- that's what Jesus is for, eh? He'll provide for them in heaven after they've kicked the bucket -- of course, that may leave the surviving family in a bit of a bind, but what's that got to do with healthcare, after all?

I have read every post in the thread and decided to come back to this one.

First things first, I'm glad ACA was repealed. Not super duper glad, but it does undo a bit of legacy for O, and it was a political football for last 5 or so years. Now Pubs will have to run on something else, and Dems can stop being in the business of making religious people do things (for healthcare) that they'd really rather not do.

But, with the Christ angle brought up in this thread, and on a religious forum, IMO it needs to be said that there is clear difference between healing and treatment. Treatment is good. In some situations, treatment clearly ought to be sought. But healing is at another level that I really don't see the world understanding. More like, it's nice when it happens and we are ever hopeful that it will happen. To me, Jesus was explicit about the message that healing/healer is within you. Thus, this notion of we have to spend lots of money to obtain something that, in reality, is half-assed approach to healing is at times just simply laughable. I get that we can mock 'faith-healing' all day long, but it really is how all healing works. Even when full scientific, methodological treatments are in place.

I find it consistently sad that we think doctors are the only 'healers' and that they, along with healthcare industry, are deserving so much allegiance, attention, and funding. To the point where we literally have no idea how to manage healthcare unless they are somehow given a trillion dollars each year. IMO, Jesus' vision was for everyone to realize the healer they are, and to freely be available for healing whatever is currently ailing anyone, without exception of that person's status in this world. If something (in a body) specifically needs mending, that would be where treatment matters. But if rest, medication, and monitoring is what's on the plate, then healing is what's in order.

The good news is regardless of the earthly, political solution we dream up as answer to managing massive healthcare, this free and far more effective solution will always be available, and likely always be what is leading to actual healing.

 

[metis]

First things first, I'm glad ACA was repealed.

So, returning back to the conditions prior to the ASA whereas, according to both the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard University studies, roughly 40,000 Americans were dying prematurely every year is all fine & dandy?

But if rest, medication, and monitoring is what's on the plate, then healing is what's in order.

That only goes so far, and any missionary will tell you that more is needed.

 

[Acim]

So, returning back to the conditions prior to the ASA whereas, according to both the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard University studies, roughly 40,000 Americans were dying prematurely every year is all fine & dandy?

Yes. People dying prematurely will happen for as long as there are people on this planet.

That only goes so far, and any missionary will tell you that more is needed.

Healing goes (far) further than treatment. Literally like comparing a mountain to a mole hill.

 

[metis]

Yes. People dying prematurely will happen for as long as there are people on this planet.

So, you really don't care about the well-being of people? Jesus did. Moses did. Mohammed did. They didn't just preach.

Healing goes (far) further than treatment. Literally like comparing a mountain to a mole hill.

A one-size fits all approach rarely works. I would suggest putting people first would be a much more effective and more moral approach.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I just got a letter in the mail concerning my insurance and Obamacare, I did not read it the minute I saw "Affordable Health Care." Just sends shivers down my spine seeing that title

 

[psychoslice]

This is what you said.

I said, what experience did you have with the ACA that led you to that conclusion?

I didn't say I hated Obama, I said what a joke, which to me he is.

 

[metis]

I didn't say I hated Obama, I said what a joke, which to me he is.

It appears you do not understand what his administration has been able to accomplished, and undoubtedly they could have done more if it hadn't been for Republican obstructionism. Compared to the previous administration, this one was full of rock-stars.

 

[psychoslice]

It appears you do not understand what his administration has been able to accomplished, and undoubtedly they could have done more if it hadn't been for Republican obstructionism. Compared to the previous administration, this one was full of rock-stars.

Do we really understand everything, of course not, there is so much crap out there that you and I are feed, as I always say, lets see what happens, anything else is only opinionated.

 

[metis]

Do we really understand everything, of course not, there is so much crap out there that you and I are feed, as I always say, lets see what happens, anything else is only opinionated.

That's why it's important to get one's news from multiple sources.

 

[psychoslice]

That's why it's important to get one's news from multiple sources.

Yes and that is what I do, many people who are born into a certain party will usually grow up supporting that party, which I think is unintelligent, just saying.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I feel important is to have a society that actually cares about each of us as individuals enough to try and help those who are not in a position to help themselves.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
I do believe FDR highlighted a very basic point, something that even the wealthiest of the ancient Greeks acknowledged, and that is you can only prosper as much or as little as your culture and state allow. We can let the wealthy continue to build vast riches and wealth that exceed entire nations combined, or we can elevate society as a whole. Let a few live relatively problem free, or let work on easing the problems of society. And, in the end, ultimately the wealthier the poor the better off the rich will be as there is more money to buy goods and services, more disposable income, and more economic demand.

No. There will be a fix. I dunno why people think it will instantly go poof overnight. Lol There of course will be a process of phasing in and out over time things that require changing.

Have you considered the alarm is over the fact that for several years now Republicans have went about 'repeal and replace," but really haven't gave us any ideas about what they want to replace it with? With a few adjustments I'd be all on board for adopting Indiana's HIP as a national plan. It's good insurance, covers more than the ACA minimum, but because it is very Socialist in nature (and first used by Mitch Daniels, who is so known for privatization he is known as "the Blade") I doubt people go for it because it does involve the state managing--not people's healthcare--people's health insurance and asking for an income-based monthly payment. But it covers far more than what any private insurance I've had has covered, and far more quickly and without all the BS of legal wording games and trying to dodge coverage anyways.

 

[metis]

Yes and that is what I do, many people who are born into a certain party will usually grow up supporting that party, which I think is unintelligent, just saying.

Let me give you my daily news routine:

Local news ABC affiliate) 6:30-7

Today Show (NBC) from 7-8 a.m.

Morning Joe (MSNBC) 8-8:30 ("Joe" is Joe Scarborough, a former representative who's a Republican)

national news (ABC) 6:30-7

Rachael Maddow (MSNBC) 9-10

scatted during the day, CNN

periodically (Fox)

multiple news sources on-line (Yahoo)

BBC News taped M-F and viewed when I find time


BTW, I'm retired-- can't ya tell.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes and that is what I do, many people who are born into a certain party will usually grow up supporting that party, which I think is unintelligent, just saying.

Until pretty recently, "politically custom tailored" news really wasn't much of a thing, and there was no simply finding another page until you find a source that agrees with you. News was news, and facts were facts. Now news is "what I agree with" and facts are "what I think about an issue." This forum alone is testament to that fact as we have both Conservatives and Liberals who incessantly whining over made up nonsense, quoting self-circulating and self-contained sources (really no different than we see from Christians trying to make a case for ID), and both making the exact same accusations against each other and their sources. Obviously two opposing "facts" cannot both be fact. We do have a system for helping us deduce and filter and sort out what is truth from fallacy, a very powerful tool for guiding us to know the difference between coincidence and established correlation, a method that brought us from the "dark ages" into Enlightenment, but even this widely hailed and praised concept of science that has advanced us so far and enhanced our knowledge by great leaps and bounds to make even the most well educated of our ancestors extremely jealous, even this has come under political appropriation as Conservatives try to define it to fit their ideology of the world, especially when it comes to homosexuals, the environment (this includes evolution), and social policy. Three areas science does not agree with them on, and three areas where we can clearly see people so brazenly just not giving a damn about facts. We know all organisms evolved over millions of years, but they want to teach, scientifically, that god just happened to create everything as is a few thousand years ago. What you speak of is true, but we clearly have a bigger problem coming from "one side" that the other side just isn't doing.

 

[psychoslice]

Let me give you my daily news routine:

Local news ABC affiliate) 6:30-7

Today Show (NBC) from 7-8 a.m.

Morning Joe (MSNBC) 8-8:30 ("Joe" is Joe Scarborough, a former representative who's a Republican)

national news (ABC) 6:30-7

Rachael Maddow (MSNBC) 9-10

scatted during the day, CNN

periodically (Fox)

multiple news sources on-line (Yahoo)

BBC News taped M-F and viewed when I find time


BTW, I'm retired-- can't ya tell.

Yea, interesting, I don't know most of them, maybe because I am here in Australia, I don't like CNN, I hate news of any type that is biased because you never really get the truth, or anything near the truth, but I suppose their all like that in some way ?.

 

[psychoslice]

Until pretty recently, "politically custom tailored" news really wasn't much of a thing, and there was no simply finding another page until you find a source that agrees with you. News was news, and facts were facts. Now news is "what I agree with" and facts are "what I think about an issue." This forum alone is testament to that fact as we have both Conservatives and Liberals who incessantly whining over made up nonsense, quoting self-circulating and self-contained sources (really no different than we see from Christians trying to make a case for ID), and both making the exact same accusations against each other and their sources. Obviously two opposing "facts" cannot both be fact. We do have a system for helping us deduce and filter and sort out what is truth from fallacy, a very powerful tool for guiding us to know the difference between coincidence and established correlation, a method that brought us from the "dark ages" into Enlightenment, but even this widely hailed and praised concept of science that has advanced us so far and enhanced our knowledge by great leaps and bounds to make even the most well educated of our ancestors extremely jealous, even this has come under political appropriation as Conservatives try to define it to fit their ideology of the world, especially when it comes to homosexuals, the environment (this includes evolution), and social policy. Three areas science does not agree with them on, and three areas where we can clearly see people so brazenly just not giving a damn about facts. We know all organisms evolved over millions of years, but they want to teach, scientifically, that god just happened to create everything as is a few thousand years ago. What you speak of is true, but we clearly have a bigger problem coming from "one side" that the other side just isn't doing.

Yes and whatever the side is who knows, really who knows.

 

[Curious George]

Let me give you my daily news routine:

Local news ABC affiliate) 6:30-7

Today Show (NBC) from 7-8 a.m.

Morning Joe (MSNBC) 8-8:30 ("Joe" is Joe Scarborough, a former representative who's a Republican)

national news (ABC) 6:30-7

Rachael Maddow (MSNBC) 9-10

scatted during the day, CNN

periodically (Fox)

multiple news sources on-line (Yahoo)

BBC News taped M-F and viewed when I find time


BTW, I'm retired-- can't ya tell.

If you want to round it out even more you can follow blogs posted on ACLU(liberal), American center for law and justice(conservative), cato institute (libertarian), and volokh conspiracy which is now featured at Washington post online (libertarian). I highly recommend checking in at scotusblog and listening to oral arguments and transcripts at supremecourt.gov

It may sound a lot, but hey, you are retired.

 

[Curious George]

Yea, interesting, I don't know most of them, maybe because I am here in Australia, I don't like CNN, I hate news of any type that is biased because you never really get the truth, or anything near the truth, but I suppose their all like that in some way ?.

You're in au, but you seem to have a thing against Obama, why?

 

[psychoslice]

You're in au, but you seem to have a thing against Obama, why?

Just in case you don't know, whatever he decides could in some ways affect our country, especially when there is war involved, one thing we don't need is a warmonger.

 

[Curious George]

Just in case you don't know, whatever he decides could in some ways affect our country, especially when there is war involved, one thing we don't need is a warmonger.

So, your thing for Obama, why? You think Obama involved Australia in unnecessary conflict?

 

[psychoslice]

So, your thing for Obama, why? You think Obama involved Australia in unnecessary conflict?

Yes I do, and I hope Trump will stop it all.