Taxes of the healthbill
-
thrakazog wrote:
Step 1: Create new religion.
Yes, it seems to me this is a loophole for every person who refuses to have religion. I don't see that as an issue, the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it, esp when it's not being run in the only logical way ( one insurer, run by the government )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it
One requires the other. If they removed the denial from pre-existing conditions, but didn't make it mandatory, then people could just drop their insurance until they get sick, then start a new policy. The risk pool would be worse all around, so premiums would skyrocket.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
thrakazog wrote:
I must have missed that. But it brings a new plan to mind. Step 1: Create new religion. Step 2: Claim this bill violates my religion it and avoid paying taxes. Step 3: Happy dance.
I was thinking of that... I wonder how many people will try something of the sort... Always a sticky situation when the government has to judge whether a religion is valid.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)What it makes me wonder is that the religious positions are based on strongly held beliefs. If I'm an atheist, and have a strongly held belief against this sort of thing... Should I not be entitled to some equal protection of my belief and be exempt? If I had a bunch of money to burn and a handful of lawyers this might be a fun one to test. :rolleyes:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it
One requires the other. If they removed the denial from pre-existing conditions, but didn't make it mandatory, then people could just drop their insurance until they get sick, then start a new policy. The risk pool would be worse all around, so premiums would skyrocket.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Sure - I see that. But, so long as most people have jobs, and all jobs come with insurance, that's not really going to happen, is it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Step 1: Create new religion.
Yes, it seems to me this is a loophole for every person who refuses to have religion. I don't see that as an issue, the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it, esp when it's not being run in the only logical way ( one insurer, run by the government )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
in the only logical way ( one insurer, run by the government )
That might be the more humane/compassionate way to run it. But I wouldn't say it's the most logical.
Well, if you want 100% coverage, and you want to spread risk, and you want to keep the cost down, that's the way to do it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Sure - I see that. But, so long as most people have jobs, and all jobs come with insurance, that's not really going to happen, is it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
and all jobs come with insurance
This is something that has always annoyed me. My employer shouldn't have anything to do with my health insurance. I just want to work in exchange for money. What I spend that money on is my own business. But now it seems we'll be fining employers of certain sizes who don't provide health insurance. :doh:
-
Sure - I see that. But, so long as most people have jobs, and all jobs come with insurance, that's not really going to happen, is it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You can opt out of health insurance at most jobs. The option is there, in case your spouse/parent has a plan that covers you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
thrakazog wrote:
Many see the forced participation as "adversely effects every individual".
Well, that's not what he said, nor is it logical.
thrakazog wrote:
Think of all the wackos that believe in faith healing.
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing. I still have health insurance, and gladly pay my medicare levy. You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
thrakazog wrote:
They will now have to pay for the evil medical services that they don't believe in for others.
Actually, the link CSS posted says that people can claim exemption for religious reasons ( or someone said it below, I read it this morning )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another? I'll answer rhetorically and say faith healing doesn't exist and never has. I personally think that this whole idea about Christ (and Peter and Paul later) wandering around and laying hands on people to cure them of their ills is a complete misnomer, and I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation. The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith. I do remember an awful lot of stuff about if we follow His way we are pretty much all certain to be persecuted. It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next. I've done a lot of research on the early church lately, specifically faith before and after the First Council of Nicea. It is my strong belief that a lot of what we know about Christ's miracles - raising Lazarus from the dead, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the woman who had bled for 12 years etc. - are fabrications designed to impart a false sense of what Christianity has to offer. I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
and all jobs come with insurance
This is something that has always annoyed me. My employer shouldn't have anything to do with my health insurance. I just want to work in exchange for money. What I spend that money on is my own business. But now it seems we'll be fining employers of certain sizes who don't provide health insurance. :doh:
Yes, I've always thought that the US system is insane on multiple levels.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another? I'll answer rhetorically and say faith healing doesn't exist and never has. I personally think that this whole idea about Christ (and Peter and Paul later) wandering around and laying hands on people to cure them of their ills is a complete misnomer, and I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation. The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith. I do remember an awful lot of stuff about if we follow His way we are pretty much all certain to be persecuted. It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next. I've done a lot of research on the early church lately, specifically faith before and after the First Council of Nicea. It is my strong belief that a lot of what we know about Christ's miracles - raising Lazarus from the dead, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the woman who had bled for 12 years etc. - are fabrications designed to impart a false sense of what Christianity has to offer. I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
martin_hughes wrote:
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another?
Because it's not meant to be a test for God that I get sick and refuse to take penicillin. Because healing in this life is not meant to mean we never get sick, or never die. It's not even really a fundamental of what Christianity is about.
martin_hughes wrote:
The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Healing in this age exists as a sign of God's ability to do what He said, it is indeed not what His core purpose was, any more than it was to give food to the hungry or money to the poor.
martin_hughes wrote:
I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith.
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. just off the top of my head. But I agree, it is not fundamental
martin_hughes wrote:
It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next.
No, that's not true. It certainly teaches that faith in the next world is more important than hoping for some sort of material blessing in this, but it doesn't teach that God is powerful, but does nothing for His people until they die.
martin_hughes wrote:
I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
I don't disagree with this, in principle. But, I do disagree that this means that faith must be b
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another?
Because it's not meant to be a test for God that I get sick and refuse to take penicillin. Because healing in this life is not meant to mean we never get sick, or never die. It's not even really a fundamental of what Christianity is about.
martin_hughes wrote:
The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Healing in this age exists as a sign of God's ability to do what He said, it is indeed not what His core purpose was, any more than it was to give food to the hungry or money to the poor.
martin_hughes wrote:
I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith.
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. just off the top of my head. But I agree, it is not fundamental
martin_hughes wrote:
It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next.
No, that's not true. It certainly teaches that faith in the next world is more important than hoping for some sort of material blessing in this, but it doesn't teach that God is powerful, but does nothing for His people until they die.
martin_hughes wrote:
I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
I don't disagree with this, in principle. But, I do disagree that this means that faith must be b
Christian Graus wrote:
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
To me, this one seems more metaphorical about the path to heaven, rather than a literal translation of getting out of bed...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another? I'll answer rhetorically and say faith healing doesn't exist and never has. I personally think that this whole idea about Christ (and Peter and Paul later) wandering around and laying hands on people to cure them of their ills is a complete misnomer, and I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation. The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith. I do remember an awful lot of stuff about if we follow His way we are pretty much all certain to be persecuted. It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next. I've done a lot of research on the early church lately, specifically faith before and after the First Council of Nicea. It is my strong belief that a lot of what we know about Christ's miracles - raising Lazarus from the dead, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the woman who had bled for 12 years etc. - are fabrications designed to impart a false sense of what Christianity has to offer. I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
martin_hughes wrote:
I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation.
I agree, he isn't following the laws of his country. Australians aren't free and never had been, they were settled by criminals in chains, they are a chaingang. I think his government should strip him of his land and property immediately for having those dangerous ideas.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
To me, this one seems more metaphorical about the path to heaven, rather than a literal translation of getting out of bed...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
ROTFL !!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation.
I agree, he isn't following the laws of his country. Australians aren't free and never had been, they were settled by criminals in chains, they are a chaingang. I think his government should strip him of his land and property immediately for having those dangerous ideas.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Thanks for your usual thoughtful expose.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ROTFL !!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote: Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. To me, this one seems more metaphorical about the path to heaven, rather than a literal translation of getting out of bed...
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL !!
I think I missed the joke? That's actually how I read/interpreted it too :-O
-
Christian Graus wrote: Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. To me, this one seems more metaphorical about the path to heaven, rather than a literal translation of getting out of bed...
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL !!
I think I missed the joke? That's actually how I read/interpreted it too :-O
Well I'm sorry, but it's really basic English. If the sick are saved, raised up and forgiven, why is it a stretch to assume that at least one of those things relates to them being restored to wellness ? If none of those things have anything to do with being made well, why does someone have to get sick in order to have prayer which has benefits totally unrelated to their physical state, which remains unaltered ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well I'm sorry, but it's really basic English. If the sick are saved, raised up and forgiven, why is it a stretch to assume that at least one of those things relates to them being restored to wellness ? If none of those things have anything to do with being made well, why does someone have to get sick in order to have prayer which has benefits totally unrelated to their physical state, which remains unaltered ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
If it's such basic english, why doesn't it say "made well" or "made whole" or similar... I still like the metaphorical translation of it...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
If it's such basic english, why doesn't it say "made well" or "made whole" or similar... I still like the metaphorical translation of it...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
Well, there's all sorts of possible reasons, but I still think that my interpretation is the clearest. Why would the sick be prayed for, if they won't be made well ? Jam 5:15 And their prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make them well. And anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. From another version.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, there's all sorts of possible reasons, but I still think that my interpretation is the clearest. Why would the sick be prayed for, if they won't be made well ? Jam 5:15 And their prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make them well. And anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. From another version.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Jam 5:15 And their prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make them well. And anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.
Yeah fair enough, I can understand your point of view now having seen the unambiguous version.
-
Well, there's all sorts of possible reasons, but I still think that my interpretation is the clearest. Why would the sick be prayed for, if they won't be made well ? Jam 5:15 And their prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make them well. And anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. From another version.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yes, that version is much clearer... I wonder which is the correct translation?
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!