Jump to content

Gop Heath Care Blunt Bill


JenellYB
 Share

Recommended Posts

To change the topic...or not....

 

To require or compel...or not...

 

I assume most of you have seen/heard about the newest GOP antic...at least those here in the U.S....the "Blunt bill" that proposes any employer be allowed to deny coverage for any kind of health care treatment or proceedure they personally object to for religious, moral, or any other reason.

 

What say ye?

 

jenell

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/10/423346/gop-ups-the-ante-introduces-legislation-to-allow-any-employer-to-deny-any-preventive-health-service/?mobile=nc

 

 

http://dscc.me/dcvW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this, from the dscc link, particularly interesting:

 

Although the Blunt amendment takes the conservative position on birth control coverage to its logical conclusion, conservatives have previously rejected the notion that religious belief entitles individuals to ignore the law. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 1990 decision involving Oregon men who sought an exemption to drug laws on the grounds that consuming peyote was part of their religion.

 

I think their intent is to use it to disembowel the Affordable Care Act, passed into law by majority in Congress, and supported by at least a slim majority in the general population, that they rabidly would like to repeal, but can't.

I can't see this absurd bill even getting passed in the House, let alone Senate, and certainly notpast the President's veto,or simple 'non-action'.It is just another time wasting game.

 

Jenell

Edited by JenellYB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say no. Any individual (over 18) should have the right to accept or refuse any medical treatment they wish, but there should, IMO, be a minimum level of health care coverage available to every American citizen.

 

George

 

Real problem here is that this proposal doesn't give or remove any or every individual the right to accept or refuse any treatment, it gives employers right to refuse coverage for specified medical treatment under employer provided health insurance plans,as the employer's whim, even if not on a religious basis.

 

Jenell

Edited by JenellYB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jenell,

 

How does Healthcare work over there? In Australia we don't have employers providing healthcare, but the government (the taxpayers that is). Most taxpayers have to contibute 1.5% of their taxable income toward this levy.

 

Our national health system is called Medicare and (to quote directly from the Medicare webpage) it "ensures that all Australians have access to free or low-cost medical, optometrical and hospital care while being free to choose private health services and in special circumstances allied health services".

 

We also have what we call Worker's Compensation Insurance, where any worker who is injured or suffers disease at work is covered for all expenses incurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To try to answer that question given your experience would be very difficult and complicated, and allsound so absurdly ridiculous you'd find it unbeleivable, lol! To even try would take up 20 screen views here! Health care and health care insurnace are huge private for-profit industries in the U.S.

 

Some employers presently provide susidized group insurnace coverage,many do not. The mentioned Affordable Care Act set to go into effect in 2014 would require most employers to do so. That is what Republicans are fighting.

 

Put simply, don't get sick. and if you do, either get well or die quick! Even if you can "afford" it at the start, you'll be penniless by the time you either get well or die. And if your money runs out before that, too bad. It's amazing how often "there's nothing more we can do" and death, coincides so closely with with when the insurance has reached it's payout limit and you and your family's bank accounts have run dry.

 

Jenell

Edited by JenellYB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, maybe I should come over on my holidays and volunteer with American health care providers! :)

 

They might be happy with that idea....you'd be one less employee they'd have to pay wages to, could really boost their bottom lines if it were to catch on as a fad.

 

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how they want to allow health care providers the right to discrimiinate against their customers if it's their religious belief but they have no problem using big government to force their religious beliefs on patients by forcing women to have a probe shoved in their vagina in the name of their anti-choice agenda. What if it's the customer's religious belief that they should deserve to have health insurance? Why is the god of the health care provider more important than the god of the customer?

Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To change the topic...or not....

 

To require or compel...or not...

 

....the "Blunt bill" that proposes any employer be allowed to deny coverage for any kind of health care treatment or proceedure they personally object to for religious, moral, or any other reason.

 

What say ye?

 

Another stupid attempt to thwart health care to those who need it most by those who have it all, or who owe their political largesse to those who have financial interest in the status quo.

 

From the proposed amendment:

 

Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

 

Really?

 

What kind of lunacy is this?

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow! :o

Edited by PaulS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all psychiatric problems could be cured with prayer, then the Religious Right would be a lot more sane.

 

Don't EVEN get me started on that one! There are still those that insist things like schizophrenia and even autism can only be treated by exorcising demons, even swear they've see it work after all those stupid doctors gave the patient up as hopeless as they put it!

And still others that preach all that wrong with children diagosed with autism is permissive parenting, and all those kids need is some discipline,starting with a good smack on the bottom!

And depression and anxiety is nothing more than a lack of faith!

 

Jenell

Edited by JenellYB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, do ya'll have such backward, ignorant craziness among conservatives and fundamentalists overthere, or is it distinctly American?

 

It might depend on who you ask, Jenell (polictics is polictics!) but I think in general we are not as religously influenced in our politics here. In fact, I know we're not.

 

There is still a religous undercurrent to several social/policitical issues (gay marriage is one that we are 'wrestling' with currently), however our current Prime Minister was elected as a declared atheist, yet that didn't stop nearly half of the population electing her and her Party (our last Federal election was a close call and we now have what is called a minority govt - i.e. her party only gets to govern whilst they maintain an alliance with a few independents and anothe minor party called The Greens).

 

I can't imagine the US electing an atheist - everyone seems to intent on pushing their Christian credentials! :)

 

Abortion is all but completely legal in practice. There are some requirments such as needing to consult a doctor etc, and some restrictions such as only special cases after 20 weeks, but generally it is now accepted and practised nationwide. We haven't had a protest for decades I think, and as for killings of abortion doctors.....that does seem pretty unique to you guys.

 

However, to in any way deny somebody a medical procedure or treatment because of somebody's opinion that they don't deserve it due to an 'immoral' lifestyle, just wouldn't happen here. A case in point not so long ago involved a single mother heroin user who required $200k support from the State for a new body part (kidney? can't remember). There was an outcry from some but it wasn't so much religious as an argument for people who 'willfully' put themselves into such positions (although personally I see nothing willful about becoming a drug addict), nonethless the State paid and supported this person based on equal rights. Unfortuantely afterwards she returned to drugs and soon died, giving those detractors weight for their next argument I guess.

 

The main Opposition leader here, who some would say looks likely to be elected when voting comes 'round in 2013, is a Catholic and is affectionately (or perhaps derogatively) called the Mad Monk. I think he's mad in the sense that he's a mad cyclist who does 100 or so miles every day!

 

But at the end of the day, Australia is no utopian, political paradise and we are still arguing over issues such as gay marriage and the right to die (euthenasia) - both of which seem most likely to be legal within only a few years in my opinion (too long for some, I know).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would keep in mind that it is only a proposed amendment at this time with limited sponsorship and may never get close to being passed. With so many representatives in Congress there to me is no wonder that so many amendments of this sort one might deem ridiculous are proposed.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine the US electing an atheist -

 

 

 

Closest we came was Thomas Jefferson, who was most certainly a non-theist. The Jefferson Bible (newly restored and on display at the Smithsonian) is a compilation of...

 

][/size]...the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent...

 

I should add that the "Bible" eliminates every one of the miracles found in the Gospels.

 

Or, perhaps I can best put it this way: were I to make the above comment to a group of Christians, I would no doubt be reproached with declarations of indignation and concern for my immortal soul. In fact, I did exactly that in one of my infamous Sunday School lectures several years ago. I cited the above (without revealing the author's identity) as a preamble to a class entitled "Christian America?" The church leadership voted to have my class cancelled and I removed as one of their Sunday School teachers until I "repented of my spirit of rebellion."

 

My crime was in suggesting that Christians consider an alternative view to theism in their desire to "follow Jesus," as our third president attempted so long ago.

 

NORM

Edited by NORM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closest we came was Thomas Jefferson, who was most certainly a non-theist. The Jefferson Bible (newly restored and on display at the Smithsonian) is a compilation of...

 

 

 

According to the American Taliban, Obama is the most godless anti-religious president we've ever had and he's out to force his godless communism on Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PaulS wrote: However, to in any way deny somebody a medical procedure or treatment because of somebody's opinion that they don't deserve it due to an 'immoral' lifestyle, just wouldn't happen here. A case in point not so long ago involved a single mother heroin user who required $200k support from the State for a new body part (kidney? can't remember). There was an outcry from some but it wasn't so much religious as an argument for people who 'willfully' put themselves into such positions (although personally I see nothing willful about becoming a drug addict), nonethless the State paid and supported this person based on equal rights. Unfortuantely afterwards she returned to drugs and soon died, giving those detractors weight for their next argument I guess.

 

There is, I think, a couple of real issues in this kind of thing I believe are going to have to be addressed in our health care and health care delivery system here, and even our society mindset as a whole, before we are really going to find and worktoward any real long term improvements here.

 

We can remove entirely any religious or other morality based argument here, and still have some very real and practical issues.

 

The first is can we continue to justify this money is no object pull out all the stops go for broke with whatever heroic and expe4nsive measures to try to treat and save some lives at the expense of denying even basic care to others.

 

A few years ago, one of our states with a relatively liberal publicj health care system for low-income and poor faced major crisis in being simply over whelmed, the program running out of money every year long before thet ran out of year. In one year, the total amount budgeted for the entire calender year had run out by mid-September. Recognized as a major part of the problem was what was being spent on extremely expensive, often 'heroic' care, much involving such as new technology that allowed the lives of extremely pre-mature babies with severe problems be saved, expensve andoften agressive long term care for HIV/AIDS, endless rounds of attempts at one unsuccessful treatment after another in late stage, and most likely terminal, cancer patients, and the like. It just made good practival common sense, given the short fall, to look at limiting those kinds of excessive costs that were depriving others of even relatively low cost, but effective in terms of beneift, basic care. The outrage and protest from with the "right to life" quarters was unbeleivable!

This very matter isn't, however, one limited to providing government/social funded or subsidized health care to the low income. It is actually a major factor in why health care and insurnace costs have spiraled for even basic care in the private sector, as those advanced technologies and miracle life saving treatments are so exhorborantly costly that recipients and their insurance companies cannot and are not going to bear the full brunt of those costs, so those costs get distributed through the systems and everyone else is subsidizing through costs for their own basic care and inruance premiums.

 

The second is that religion and morality aside, is it realistic and practical for either indidividuals or society as a whole to continue toward a mindset, the 'medical model mindset', that we can disregard even what were once common practical precautions with lifestyle as it affects health, because whatever the consequences, we can always find a man made 'solution' to avoid the consequences. Actually an this is just one element of the greater 'science/technology can fix any mess we make" mentality that had become so mucvh a part of modern mindset. That same could be said of the personal/social responsiblity balaance, in things lke drug abuse, other dangerous behaviors, I think there does need to be a balance struck between being compassionate, recognizing human frailties and supporting those at risk or affected, toward recovery, while not faciliatating it, espcially at theexpense of others, and efforts toward discouraging, avoiding, as much as might can be.

 

jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago, one of our states with a relatively liberal publicj health care system for low-income and poor faced major crisis in being simply over whelmed, the program running out of money every year long before thet ran out of year. In one year, the total amount budgeted for the entire calender year had run out by mid-September. Recognized as a major part of the problem was what was being spent on extremely expensive, often 'heroic' care, much involving such as new technology that allowed the lives of extremely pre-mature babies with severe problems be saved, expensve andoften agressive long term care for HIV/AIDS, endless rounds of attempts at one unsuccessful treatment after another in late stage, and most likely terminal, cancer patients, and the like. It just made good practival common sense, given the short fall, to look at limiting those kinds of excessive costs that were depriving others of even relatively low cost, but effective in terms of beneift, basic care. The outrage and protest from with the "right to life" quarters was unbeleivable!

 

I'm not an economics expert but from my layman's perspective, I think there are some simple solutions to improving the budgeting problems with health insurance. Just cut the Bush tax cuts for the filfthy rich, cut funding for the Department of Defense and pull us out of all those pointless wars in the middle East that we're only making worse and direct that funding to health insurance and other social safety net programs. Having a public option to help pay for health insurace with premiums wouldn't hurt either. The GOP knows that as Americans slowly but surely become increasingly progressive in their beliefs that they're losing the hearts and minds of the people, so in their last ditch effort, they have to drum up conspiracy theories about how Obama's health care plans are all a secret communist plot to take away our freedoms. Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon wrote: The GOP knows that as Americans slowly but surely become increasingly progressive in their beliefs that they're losing the hearts and minds of the people, so in their last ditch effort, they have to drum up conspiracy theories about how Obama's health care plans are all a secret communist plot to take away our freedoms.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here. No, I don't think they do know, at least not consciously that they are losing the majority. O think that's part of their frustration, even growing desperation. They just can't believe most people don't agree with them, aren't on board with them in the ever increasing tilt to the right. Whether in GOP politicians, candidates, party activists and spokespersons, or at the level of Republican supporting conservatives among just the common people, that I might listen to, overhear, or talk to, anywhere from hanging around the local cafem to churches, some in my family,etc, I get the idea they kind of congregate in their own little circles and enclaves, do a lot of loud, long and heated talking to each other, making a lot of noise mostly only they are hearing, and for their sense of 'togetherness' in it, forget they ARE just talking among themselves, and that they are NOT the clear majority of people out there. Kind of like the football team that think they've got the game won before they ever leave the locker room to confront the opposting team, because coach just led them in a good rousing pep rally. I know some of these people, get a few of them together, and they really believe "most" people see things the way they do simply becasue they are all agreeing with each other in their own little huddles.

 

I really think if GOP candidates go down hard in 2012 to a Democrat landslide, which I'm suspecting they will, they are really going to be shocked, in disbelief. Which of course will open up a whole new blast of conspiracy theories for how the liberal communist Democrats pulled off the fraud, the eigged elections. And which, I'm sad to say this, but have been feeling increasing concerns about it, may also be the point at which conservative frustration could take up a new tack...have "lost" on the basis of the 1st Amendment, the majority of their fellow Americans' voice through the vote, it may be their precious claims to their 2nd amendment rights as they interpret that, intheir next desperate step.

 

Jenell

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service