That is what the "health care exchanges" are supposed to do. Create a place for buyers and sellers to come together, and for buyers to get information from sellers in a rational, informative and structured way that makes comparison of different insurers easy. And the public option is also there, to provide an alternative source of downward pressure by showing what competition could be accomplished by a nonprofit.
The hidden problem is that there are so many ineligible buyers when health qualifying is left in the mix. Anyone with a "poor choice" of employer-sponsored group health is free to waive out and try to find better on their own.... GOOD LUCK!
For me personally health care isnt that much of an encroachment on freedoms, save the right to choose no health care and to create your own savings plan for emergencies. But i know just like those who use "thyroid condition" for excusing morbidly obese folks(yes I am quite sure a small percentage of those folks have it) there will be many abusing that excuse. When I think of freedoms being under fire it's more the right for adults to say a blessing over their meal and not face jail time. Or a teacher to say "God Bless You" to a student that sneezes and not face repurcussion from a parent not even involved in the situation who hears about it second hand.
I'll respond to this later. Right now, I have to go bail out Mrs. rimrocker. She said Grace for us at last night's dinner and just as she finished the "Amen," Obama's jack-booted thugs rappelled down from black helicopters and took her off to the pokey. They then confiscated all my guns and entered my name into a Whitehouse database that will later be used to round up people for the camps. After talking with the jailers, they'll let Mrs. rimrocker go if we contribute to Obama's 2012 campaign and she promises to either wear a burka or become an atheist.
I thought the topic at hand was accessibility to insurance restricting one's ability to pursue jobs or take career risks. Those of you with great insurance choices *at you current employ* are speaking to that very issue. If someone who might be difficult to insure and who works for themselves, or for a very small company wants to chirp in about their plethora of low cost insurance options, that would speak against Rim's original post.
Is it? That's seems to be the topic of the debate between you and Sam. The thread is titled freedom and the OP makes a stong case for how public insurance increases freedom and risk taking in the entrepeneurial world. Interesting that in three pages nobody has countered the idea yet, and the usual suspects aren't to be seen (yet.)
Did Florida secede?? Athletic Director invokes a blessing over the meal at a booster meeting, and now he is being prosecuted for it?? Granted this isnt an Obama thing. People have been getting in trouble for "christianity" being visible from anyone who isnt a student in public schools for quite some time now.
Florida didn't secede as far as I know. The guy wasn't being prosecuted for being a Christian he was in trouble for putting prayer at a public event. A Muslim, Hindu, or Jew would have also been prosecuted had they said their own prayer at a public school, public gathering.
Oh, I seriosuly doubt a jew or a muslim would face any charges for saying a prayer before a meal. But you just proved that blessing a meal can be grounds for prosecution. And I am sorry, but under no circumstances should a blessing of a meal be a prosecutable offense. From any religious preference. That is the problem. And as I said before, its not an Obama thing.
You are perfectly free to bless your own meal. You don't have a right to impose your blessing on everybody else. It's like second-hand smoke. Keep it to yourself and nobody cares. But when you force others to submit to your "freedoms", you take away their freedom.
Second hand smoke?? What kind of blessings are you seeing out there. The ones I have seen have no tangible effects other than words being spoken by someone. And the 2nd part can be taken to mean anything that one might find offensive or just irritating. So should foul language in a public setting be prosecutable?? Shouldn't people have the right to NOT have to hear it?? Edit: Sorry 'bout the thread derail RR, as I said in my initial post the only freedom the plans that I have heard about remove is the right to choose not to have insurance. And like I also said earlier, some will invoke that right with no intention of dealing with the financial responsibility themselves.(savings plan or whatever)
Boy, that sure would be strange! I guess if that were the case, then you'd have to agree with my position, right? [rquoter] TEXAS PENAL CODE TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES ยง 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: <dd> uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place; abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner; makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy; fights with another in a public place; discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code; displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm; discharges a firearm on or across a public road; exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or for a lewd or unlawful purpose: (A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling; (B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or (C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area. </dd> (b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct. (c) For purposes of this section: <dd>(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and (2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.</dd> (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor. (e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code. </dd> [/rquoter]
Now, how many times does a school or government official get prosecuted for use of profanity in the work place? I know coaches use lots of foul language, even to the players.
The deciding factor, as you can see from the disorderly conduct statute, is whether that speech offends, or causes a breach of peace. If someone wanted to make an issue out of it, they could do so.
I guarantee you that there are just as many people that get offended by the 7 words George Carlin mentioned all those years ago as get offended by the words put together to bless a meal. Especially in a public school setting coming from a teacher or administrator. I also believe that a large majority of folks in the US treat both circumstances like water on a duck's back. Now, I am no judge or jury, but the worst punishment I could dole out for that first offense would be verbal warning. Make sure that the person is aware that you are aware of the statutes or rules that he/she broke. Further offense would be punishable with fines and or whatever the laws allow. Which is the maximum that this person in Florida should have been given. They face jail time, and a potential loss of their retirement fund that they had worked 30+ years for with a conviction.
As has been said, it isn't blessing ones own meal, it's blessing the other meals in public. Why don't you think a jew or muslim would face the same consequences?
