posted
U.S. health officials announced Friday that private insurers can send seniors information on health-related issues as long as they allow their members to opt out of receiving the communications, effectively ending its probe of Humana.
The federal government, in the face of allegations it was trampling on free speech, has closed its investigation of a major insurance company for allegedly trying to scare seniors with a mailer warning they could lose important benefits under President Obama's health reform plan.
U.S. health officials announced Friday that private insurers can send seniors information on health-related issues as long as they allow their members to opt out of receiving the communications, apparently ending its probe of Humana.
"While we feel it is important to protect Medicare beneficiaries from potentially unwelcome marketing and other communications, we also recognize plans' interest in contacting their enrollees on issues unrelated to the specific plan benefit that they contract with CMS to provide to those enrollees," Teresea DeCaro, acting director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Drug and Health Plan Contract Administration Group, wrote in a memo.
Republicans, who had slammed Obama officials for launching the probe, welcomed the news but still expressed concerns.
"I am relieved that the administration is no longer misusing its regulatory authority to prohibit plans from communicating to seniors factual information about the Medicare cuts in health care reform," Rep. Dave Camp, the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a written statement.
"However, I remain concerned that CMS overstepped in issuing its gag order as a result of undue political pressure to penalize anyone who dare speak out against the Democrats' health care bill," he said. "We still need to get the answers to how and why this gag order was issued."
CMS is concerned that, among other things, this information is misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, represents information to beneficiaries as official communications about the Medicare Advantage program, and is potentially contrary to federal regulations and guidance for the MA and Part D programs and other federal law, including HIPAA. As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website.
Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions.Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
it's not complicated really. the co's are UNDER CONTRACT with CMS...in other words? CMS is who pays their paycheck... that would make them their boss, would it not? there's NO honest way that a private carrier can take tax dollars and make money while providing the same services.
isn't that the argument the insurance carriers are using to defeat the Public Option?
is there so much smoke in the air nobody can see anything anymore? are the mirrors really that blinding?
ever work under govt contract? do you understand that in contract law? you have no rights other than what is specified under the contract? that's fact.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
CMS is concerned that, among other things, this information is misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, represents information to beneficiaries as official communications about the Medicare Advantage program, and is potentially contrary to federal regulations and guidance for the MA and Part D programs and other federal law, including HIPAA
do you understand HIPAA? i don't. my doctor is not allowed to release my records to me unless his office wrote them...
in other words? i cannot get records FROM HIM that he got from soemone else even tho i signed the release for HIM to get them.... HIPAA is some wierd chit...
now the letter also states that:
As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website.
so, until they made a determination? LOL.. hardly a gag order...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not sure how the CMS thought HIPAA applies here. Humana did not release any informtion from any individual. They simply provided information that they felt would convey their opinion of what the affects of such cuts would entail. Since no single person's private information was involved, HIPAA should not matter here.
quote:so, until they made a determination? LOL.. hardly a gag order...
No, it's an 'order' to not distribute material that is in opposition to Obama's plan with the implied threat that if they don't 'play ball' they will have auditors creeping up their bodily orafices. Notice how now that their lawyers have told them that they have no grounds to stop Humana from talking to their clients they have backed off.
Still waiting to see if 'punitive audits' are in the near future if Humana keeps up with the mailings.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since no single person's private information was involved, HIPAA should not matter here
now you are guessing. the question posed is how the emailing lists were generated. it was apparently looked into..
there is nothing insidious going on here, any more than having the White House send emails direct... remember that? it was "criminal" according to the friends of the fox...
the original notification said EXACTLY: until they make a determination.... they did... more crying.
Still waiting to see if 'punitive audits' are in the near future if Humana keeps up with the mailings.
i hope they drop the medicare advantage programs entirely. it's a ripoff and a waste of taxpayers money, and so should you if you really are a conservative.
but, as usual, you are just repeating what the cult of personality tells you to repeat
this is all more smoke and mirriors.
CMS pays the money to Humana, they are Humanas boss.. not complicated.
BTW? i just got notified that my health insurance is going up 10% or more next year...
i expect most people will be getting those notices...
this health care mess is a joke, and when health insurance is 25 grand a year? people will beg for a public option.
why is it that nobody gets the fact that small businesses would be able to THRIVE with a public option?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:i hope they drop the medicare advantage programs entirely. it's a ripoff and a waste of taxpayers money, and so should you if you really are a conservative.
but, as usual, you are just repeating what the cult of personality tells you to repeat
ROFL. Now you're either 'soapboxing' or simply being mean spirited, Glass.
As a 'conservative', which I do consider myself, I DO think medicare advantage is a ripoff and should be repealed. Along with several other entitlement programs.
But that being said, I do not believe that it is ok for the government, regardless of which party is in power, to wield their power to beat people or private companies into submission to their beliefs. And at it's heart, that's exactly what this was. The insurer stated their belief on what would be the result of medicare\medicaid cuts. I'll tell you from experience that NOTHING gets mailed out from a major corporation without having met the Legal Deptpartments approval. Humana knew full well when they sent it that it was above board and after all the harrassment, the CMS agreed.
quote:BTW? i just got notified that my health insurance is going up 10% or more next year...
Just about the same here, sitting at about $120 a paycheck after the increase. And know what? I will still happily pay it for the ability to go to the Doctor\Hospital anytime my family needs to go knowing that minus a minor co-pay everything will be covered.
quote:this health care mess is a joke, and when health insurance is 25 grand a year? people will beg for a public option.
why is it that nobody gets the fact that small businesses would be able to THRIVE with a public option?
Of course they will prosper! They'll be able to stop paying the thousands of dollars they have to spend to keep their people insured and simply pay the 'fine' for not insuring their folks. It will simply be far more cost effective to do so. This is yet another reason why the public option will KILL private insurance programs.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that being said, I do not believe that it is ok for the government, regardless of which party is in power, to wield their power to beat people or private companies into submission to their beliefs
...unless it is gays in search of a marriage license right SF?
CMS is full in their authority to halt certain activities in a contacted subsidiary that they suspected of unethical and perhaps criminal business practices after a complaint was received from a consumer. That is business. When no criminal activities came to light the probe was dismissed. What about this is not straightforward?
Health insurance should be divorced from employment in my opinion. It would empower individuals more if it were separate.
A small co-pay as long as it is a fever or rash you are gonna have checked out. What's your Out of Pocket Max? That's what you need to look at should something serious occur. 2/3rd of all bankruptcies are related to medical bills SF. Don't make the mistake of believing yourself immune.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course they will prosper! They'll be able to stop paying the thousands of dollars they have to spend to keep their people insured and simply pay the 'fine' for not insuring their folks. It will simply be far more cost effective to do so. This is yet another reason why the public option will KILL private insurance programs
you donot seem to understand what the public option is then....
folks would still be insured.
in a global economy? we are the only place left without it. people talk about competition being good? medical costs are going to cut (even more)into our ability to compete
as for your 120$ a paycheck? that will double int he next ten years IF your employer keeps paying the same percentage.
i don't expect employers will be able to keep paying the same percentage.
remember the global competition part...
i'm not clear what sopabox you think i'm on...
i'm trying to be practical in a climate where the "right" simply wants to win one against Obama.
what we are seeing happen right now is the GOP trying to force Obama into RAISING your and my taxes so they can say he didn't keep his promise. get it?
the GOP wants to win a battle and You and I do not matter to them...
one other GOP plan is to open insurance across statelines...
however, then they'll have to create a federal insurance commission.. another Govt agency...
if they do not open one? the insurance co's will screw over their customers even worse than they do today...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...unless it is gays in search of a marriage license right SF?
I think that it should be state by state. I don't think the Fed's have any authority on this one and shouldn't. I'll find a couple of links to back this next part up but I'm on the way out from work.
In EVERY state that it has been put to the people to vote on, Gay Marriage has been defeated EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's not the Fed's, it's not DOMA, it's been the people saying no. That's democracy.
quote:CMS is full in their authority to halt certain activities in a contacted subsidiary that they suspected of unethical and perhaps criminal business practices after a complaint was received from a consumer. That is business. When no criminal activities came to light the probe was dismissed. What about this is not straightforward?
What in the mailers could even be considered 'unethical and perhaps criminal'?
As I said to Glass. NOTHING goes out from a major corp until Legal clears it. Humana knew they were ok and so did the CMS. They simply used their authority to bully Humana around.
quote:Health insurance should be divorced from employment in my opinion. It would empower individuals more if it were separate
I actually agree with you on this one, Big. However, one needs to realize that in many cases the bulk of the insurance is already being paid for by the employer. To balance that out, they would need to up base pay to equal out the total comp and then it would be up to the individual to use that money to find coverage.
Personal responsibility.
quote:A small co-pay as long as it is a fever or rash you are gonna have checked out. What's your Out of Pocket Max? That's what you need to look at should something serious occur. 2/3rd of all bankruptcies are related to medical bills SF. Don't make the mistake of believing yourself immune.
As of this moment, Big, my insurance covers nearly everything known to man. Seriously. I know many companies don't offer such comprehensive insurance any more but mine does. After co pay, EVERYTHING is covered. I've never had a year yet that I haven't surpassed my total money output in medical bills. Nothing has ever been challenged, let alone refused.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with you on this one, Big. However, one needs to realize that in many cases the bulk of the insurance is already being paid for by the employer. To balance that out, they would need to up base pay to equal out the total comp and then it would be up to the individual to use that money to find coverage.
LOL... now you are beginning to sound like a soshulist...
do you beleive that all employers will actually come up with all the money? i don't....
some will. most would have to be "told" to by the govt....(more laws we don't want)
BTW? there was a plan on the table for an "insurance exchange" that would allow this, and it would have forced the insurance co's to offer the best deals- similar to the ones that the largest group "insurance buyers" get today (like no rejection for pre-existing conditions)to individuals.. the Public Option was also to be included in that plan as one option to keep the prices competitive...
the oxymoronic thing about that is that the same people who say the public option would drive prvate co's out of business also say the govt can't do anything right.. go figure...
there's been so much BS put out by so many people that it isn't clear if anything like that will happen now.... which is a shame, cuz we are in economic trouble as a nation over our health care costs.
i am not a fan of single payer, but i do beleive the govt could manage a bare bones insurance plan that would force costs down across the board...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:LOL... now you are beginning to sound like a soshulist...
do you beleive that all employers will actually come up with all the money? i don't....
some will. most wold have to be told to by the govt....
Socialist? Not even close. It comes down to total compensation. Many jobs pay less 'per hour' yet have benefits that make it more desireable than 'higher paying' jobs. If an employer that is currently offering good benefits (like mine) suddenly decided to stop doing so (because of the public option\fine issue) and didn't increase wages to compensate they would quickly find themselves losing employees to other companies.
That's capitalism at it's finest.
quote:BTW? there was a plan on the table for an "insurance exchange" that would allow this, and it would have forced to the insurance co's to offer the best deals similar to the ones that the largest "insurance buyers" get today (like no rejection for pre-existing conditions)to individuals.. the Public Option was to be included in that plan as one option to keep the prices competitive...
We've already beaten this dead horse, Glass. An exchange would dictate what the plans HAD to offer without allowing the Insurance Co's to compensate the increased risk through premium hike's. There is NO WAY it won't kill them.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In EVERY state that it has been put to the people to vote on, Gay Marriage has been defeated EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's not the Fed's, it's not DOMA, it's been the people saying no. That's democracy.
should slavery be up to the vote?
i've never thought gay marriage is proper marriage, IMO you are changing the definition of marriage,
however,
in the last 5 years, with so many people voting against it and against civil unions for gays? i've come to the conclusion that you should not vote away people rights...
refusing to grant people (any people) the right to a civil union is wrong. it's akin to the miscegeny laws and legal slavery...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've already beaten this dead horse, Glass. An exchange would dictate what the plans HAD to offer without allowing the Insurance Co's to compensate the increased risk through premium hike's. There is NO WAY it won't kill them.
the exchange would have price fixing? i don't think so.
i beleive the exchange would have required them all to offer a certain minimum on benefits, but not fix prices.
fact is? if somebody has a pre-existing condition? we subsidise the insurance co's PROFITS by making special insurance available to them or just caring for them anyway thru medicaid
do you have any idea why health care costs have gone up so much?
one main reason is that pillpushers now advertise (they spend much more on ads than on research) to people that cannot even buy the dope without their doctors writing a script...
Bush cut them a huge deal when he was in office.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol SF You say that government power should not be used to beat individuals into submission into accepting their beliefs and yet you have no compunction about using same said power yourself to beat individuals into submission based on your beliefs just because you are in the majority.
That's called hypocrisy Seek.
One word in that letter, Could, turns a blatantly false statement into a misleading one. I wonder what other sentences were sent to those who signed up for the private mailing? Perhaps they went farther than could and lied to their customers about the governments proposals in an effort to use constituent pressure to defeat Medical Reform and retain their Cash Cow.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps they went farther than could and lied to their customers about the governments proposals in an effort to use constituent pressure to defeat Medical Reform and retain their Cash Cow.
for instance? i can find no evidence that there was a plan to fix pricing.
the complaint was only that the public option would be too competitive... which like i said is oxymoronic since "the govt cannot do anything right"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though a health insurance exchange has been promoted as a policy initiative in many states, so far it has been translated into working models in two: Massachusetts and Utah.[5]
In a truly competitive market based on real consumer choice and genuine competition, the suppliers of goods and services would operate on a level playing field and government would be confined to making and enforcing rules to protect consumers from fraud and misleading advertising, establishing minimum standards for health and safety, and enforcing contracts.
An exchange could facilitate that process. The government would not undermine competition by fielding its own enterprise with the special advantages of taxpayer subsidies, picking winners and losers, or imposing discriminatory tax or regulatory policies on different consumers or firms. The key to a level playing field is that the government would in no way favor one competitor over another or give any legal advantages to any player in the competition.
Federal Control. Based on the provisions of the House and Senate bills, as well as the proposals offered by President Obama, the structure and dynamics of the national exchange would be very different from those proposed by reformers who design state health insurance exchanges as optional mechanisms for consumer choice and competition.
* Instead of a single market open to any willing private health plans, the leading House and Senate bills would allow participation only by plans that met highly prescriptive federal standards, foreclosing any other options for consumer choice and competition. * Instead of establishing a level playing field among different insurers, the House and Senate proposals would foreclose the possibility of anything even barely resembling a genuinely level playing field for fair competition. * Private health plans would assume all risks and remain subject to a variety of state and federal laws beyond the proposed House and Senate provisions for a level playing field. * With the new public health plan, taxpayers would retain the risk, and the public plan would function apparently free of the legal requirements that burden private health plans.[6]
With Congress fielding its own plan in competition against private health plans, taxpayers would be forced in effect to underwrite the marketing costs of an entity designed to displace their own private coverage. Based on recent experiences with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it is certain that Congress would force taxpayers to underwrite the cost overruns of such a health insurance enterprise no matter how unsuccessful its performance. Medicare alone, a prime example of congressional micromanagement, has an accumulated unfunded liability of $38 trillion.[7] In a national health insurance exchange, taxpayers could be certain that the deck would be stacked against private-sector players in a game that is rigged from the start.
Instead of establishing a level playing field among different insurers, the House and Senate proposals would foreclose the possibility of anything even barely resembling a genuinely level playing field for fair competition.
the only part that made this plan non-competitive was the public option...
but the govt could not possibly compete against those private co's... it's impossible
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was illegal in 30 states. Illegal in 16 up until 1967 when the supreme court threw them out. Does that mean it was democracy? Will it require the supreme court to break your defense of marriage laws?
quote:A justice of the peace in Louisiana who has drawn widespread criticism for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple says he has no regrets about his decision. Beth McKay says she's still hurt over the controversy surrounding her marriage to her black fiance.
Beth McKay says she's still hurt over the controversy surrounding her marriage to her black fiance.
"It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong," Keith Bardwell told CNN affiliate WFAB on Saturday.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've ran this one into the ground with Mach several times. Majority rule is the ONLY way that a Democracy can survive. When the Government starts telling the majority of the people what they have to do, allow, believe, etc when those things are against what the majority does, allows, believes, etc. because a minority group says so that is no longer a representative democracy.
The interracial marriage laws weren't struck down simply because one set of Supreme Court Justices suddenly got a flash of inspiration that they were unconstitutional. They were struck down because the majority of people decided that they were simply bigotted and unfair. Hence, they were removed.
It may come a time, sooner or later, that the same will happen with the Gay Marriage issue. But until it does, forcing it down the throats of the majority of the people who have already voted it down is simply imposing one minority viewpoint on the whole.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL SF, seems to me that you are forgetting why they created the electoral college.
"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456
how ironic huh?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama’s Radio Address: A Missed Opportunity To Press For A Public Option
ObamaRadioIn Saturday’s radio address, President Obama condemned the insurance industry for “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads” and “flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions” “designed to mislead the American people.” Obama called out the industry for “making this last-ditch effort to stop reform” and criticized cable news and so-called experts for buying into the latest false industry reports. “It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar,” he said.
But that’s where the fiery speech ended. Obama’s response to the insurance industry reports provided him the perfect opportunity to press for a public option, only he let the moment slip. The address was long on rhetoric but short on policies that could keep the industry in check. Obama sanctioned Democratic efforts to remove the industry’s anti-trust exemption, but fell short of endorsing a robust public option that could lower health care costs, lower the costs of the bill, and keep insurance companies accountable. The following day, White House Officials took to the airwaves to explain that the administration would not demand a public plan. In fact, despite the Democrats’ super majority in Congress, and the overwhelming support of the American people, the administration wouldn’t be demanding much of anything:
- Valarie Jarrett: He’s not demanding that it’s in there. He thinks it’s the best possible choice. But I think, David, let’s not underestimate how much progress we’ve made. [MTP, 10/18/2009]
- David Axelrod: I think the final bill will achieve those goals, and a public option would help in that regard….There will be compromise. There will be legislation, and it will achieve our goals.” [This Week, 10/18/2009]
- Rahm Emanuel: And so the president believes in it as a source of competition. He also believes that it’s not the defining piece of health care. It’s whether we achieve both cost control, coverage, as well as the choice that…The president of the United States will obviously weigh in when it’s important to weigh in on that. [State of The Union, 10/18/2009]
The address was a missed opportunity. Obama could have responded to the industry’s self-serving report by arguing that reform must inject significant competition into health insurance markets. He could have used their new-found tone to argue that reform must hold the industry accountable. The American people, in other words, should not be compelled to buy private coverage from an industry that has just admitted that it would increase premiums by some 111% if reform passes.
But rest assured that Obama still believes the public option is “the best possible choice” to restore competition and improve affordability. He just refuses to fight for it. Why? The public option is not a liberal ideological baton, it’s a sensible compromise that builds on free market principles. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the option would attract some 10-15 million new applicants, hardly a threat to private insurers who have spent years building brand loyalty and today boast hundreds of millions of applicants. It would add a sliver of competition into the market — and, judging by the industry’s reaction, that’s threatening enough. It would save the government some $150 billion dollars, lower the cost of the bill, lower premiums by some 10%, and help bring about the kind of delivery system reforms that could lower the rate of growth in health care spending.
What’s more, 77% of the American people and the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate support it. So why not pressure reluctant Democrats to support the policy? Why not push Reid on the option? What does the White House have to lose?
The President may not have the votes for a public plan today, but he’ll never get them if he doesn’t publicly pressure the Congress to stand up to the health insurance industry and help make insurance more affordable for millions of Americans.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem has always been that the 'majority' mostly doesn't care(strongly) one way or the other about anything that doesn't directly affect them.
That is why we have propaganda wars for those that actually care enough to go out an vote.
If you (meaning whoever) can convince enough people that agree with you (on whatever issue) to get out and vote then you 'win' on the issue. I truly doubt that much of the debate that goes on actually convinces anyone to change their opinion on issues. It simply motivates them to act on their beliefs.
As to the current issues you mentioned?
i dont believe that the majority want gay marriage to be illegal///
All votes to date contradict that.
i dont believe that the majority dont want a public option..
I don't think that most people care if there is one or not. I simply believe that many people are afraid (legitimately imo) of what it will do to their current plans.
I dont believe the majority want to be in these wars..
I think nearly every american wants an end to the wars. Noone wants our friends and family to die on foreign soil. The concern that keeps us there is the debate on what the consequences would be if we pack up and come home.
I dont believe the majority dont believe in global warming...
I can't speak to this one because I'm a firm believer that the current science on it is far from settled. Despite many experts who offer evidence to the contrary, the bulk of the pro global warming folk act as if there is no doubt about it. That is why I think the majority isn't in favor of making economy destroying choices until the facts are settled.
sooner or later..these will become reality because its the will of the majority , and its the right thing to do..
The will of majority will always come to be sooner or later, Jordan. That's why certain things that were Constitutional have been repealed and things that were once banned are allowed. Every country that has ignored this has payed the price.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im glad you agree with me!...maybe there's hope for america yet..
now..lets address this..
JR..i dont believe that the majority dont want a public option..
SF..I don't think that most people care if there is one or not. I simply believe that many people are afraid (legitimately imo) of what it will do to their current plans.
JR.. ......some people are afraid because of the fear instilled on them by the lies from the reps..
JR..I dont believe the majority want to be in these wars..
SF..I think nearly every american wants an end to the wars. Noone wants our friends and family to die on foreign soil. The concern that keeps us there is the debate on what the consequences would be if we pack up and come home.
JR..we have no idea what the cons. will be...but it cant be any worse than it is now..lets give it a go in the name of saving lives and restoring our home front. Lets stop fuuking with brown people and we may have internal peace..
JR...I dont believe the majority dont believe in global warming...
SF..I can't speak to this one because I'm a firm believer that the current science on it is far from settled. Despite many experts who offer evidence to the contrary, the bulk of the pro global warming folk act as if there is no doubt about it. That is why I think the majority isn't in favor of making economy destroying choices until the facts are settled.
JR..you say you cant speak on it, and yet,you do..hmmm..anyway..current scientific data is strongly adament of the fact that humans have altered our globe negatively..in many aspects, including the weather patterns. the jury isnt out on that,,its in..humans are affecting this planet and we are killing ourselves and plantlife and animals..and ozone and the icecaps...and we murder millions of innocent people in the name of peace...we are not a good species and we will be wiped out as a race...lets try and have some comfort, peace and stability while we can..as a world.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak to this one because I'm a firm believer that the current science on it is far from settled. Despite many experts who offer evidence to the contrary, the bulk of the pro global warming folk act as if there is no doubt about it. That is why I think the majority isn't in favor of making economy destroying choices until the facts are settled.
LOL... once the science is settled? it will be too late.
in almost every instance that i have observed? the scientists that claim there is real doubt about global warming are Geologists.
i don't suppose i need to point out that geological research is primarily funded by oil co's
there are a couple of non-geologists that i have observed "chiming in"... but very few indeed.
also? our economy will not be destroyed, it will undergo massive changes which would happen sooner or later anyway... of course those changes are not all going to be the same, but in the end it's better to have major changes when and how you choose to have them rather than have them happen unexpectedly and out of control...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately it seems this is an issue that is going to have to be forced by legislation and the judiciary just like racial inequality and gender inequality was. I was hoping we had grown enough to do the right thing ourselves.
Sigh
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I believe that we have had this exact debate once before SF.
Majority rules doesn't always work. You yourself have been protected from majority rules thanks to the religious freedoms granted in America. Be happy majority rules is not the only measure we use in our country to determine right and wrong.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I believe that we have had this exact debate once before SF.
ROFL, I know, I just like bringing it up now and then.
Let me say that I do agree that there are absolute rights and wrongs.
But many are conflicted on this one. They, like myself, want gays to have the civil rights associated with marriage. However; they, and myself, do not want to elevate that civil union to the level of importance(religious or societal) of the traditional mom, dad, and kids family unit. As long as the gay community tries to force the issue they are going to run into voter turnouts like Maine did.
quote:You yourself have been protected from majority rules thanks to the religious freedoms granted in America.
ROFLMAO!!
Friendly advice, Big...don't tell a Mormon how happy he\she should be that we have equal protection of freedom of religion. Your likely to be referred to a Govenor Boggs and the Mormon trek to settle the Utah territory.
quote:Be happy majority rules is not the only measure we use in our country to determine right and wrong.
Then why do the politician focus so much on polling data?
Because it's that majority that puts them back in office.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those who have grown up with the personalized history lesson of Haun's Mill should think twice about preventing, circumventing, or removing common rights and governmental protections for an under-represented class.
Polls are important.
I use data myself quite often in my posts to quantify my assertions. Data, however does not denote morality.
Trading away the equal status of 5-10% of the nation in exchange for the supposed sanctity of a word and an affirmation of relational superiority is not christ-like. It is an immoral defensive reaction to protect dogma based on the a few sentences written from a cultural values standpoint of a society gone to dust millenia ago.
There is no threat to your relationships by gay marriage. There is no threat to the relationships that your son or daughter is going to form by gay marriage unless your son or daughter happens to be gay. There is no threat to your state by gay marriage. There is no threat to your religion by gay marriage, just as there is no threat to your religion by the marriage of two unbelievers.
If you allow the sanctity of your word marriage to be used without complaint to describe the relationship of two atheists then there is no way for you to object to the word being used to describe the relationship of a homosexual couple while denying of yourself the role of persecutor.
You SF, with the standpoint that you have taken, are Gov. Lilburn Boggs.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I've never understood about those who fight for 'gay equality' is that they try to make it seem like a racial inequality issue. When what they are truly fighting for is gay 'acceptance' by the society in general.
Now, think about those two terms for a moment, Big...there is a huge difference both in purpose and process.
Equality is something that the Constitution is supposed to protect. Those are the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights and other amendments. Nothing in them states anything relating to any kind of 'protection' regarding marriage. See polygamy issues in early Mormon history as an example and yes, I fully expect you to turn it back on me later. Utah was actually denied statehood until the practice of polygamy was halted.
Acceptance, which is what I truly feel is the end result of the 'gay rights' movement, CANNOT be forced like they are trying to do. For example...
The battle over gay rights will move to New Jersey and the federal government, advocates said, after Tuesday's narrow rejection of same-sex marriage by Maine voters in a hard-fought contest.
The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey, which currently recognizes same-sex couples in civil unions, is under pressure to pass a bill authorizing gay marriage before Gov. Jon Corzine ends his term in mid-January.
They are trying to force a marriage recognition law through with a lame duck govenor that has nothing to lose because the people have already 'fired' him, even though they already have a civil union law in place.
Acceptance has to come over time. Until the people in general (ie majority) come to believe that homosexuality is A)Not Immoral, B)Nature based vs Choice Based, and C)Not damaging to society in general; any attempts to force such acceptance, contrary to the will of the people, will only raise more opposition.
Many employers, like my own, have already unilaterally extended healthcare\insurance benefits to same sex couples\domestic partners because it's the 'right' thing to do. I happen to agree. But, understand that currently that's as far as society is willing to take it...
Same benefits, not the same acceptance.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you care so much seekingfreedoom is the fact two people form a union that does not suit you what is it that makes you so upset? You are never going to stop gays from living together
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
