[Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

[lfalen]

Not exactly.  Single payer assumes that people are too dumb to handle their own insurance. A single payer system runs the risk of turning out like the VA system. There are a lot of things that could be done. One of these would be to give a tax credit that can be used for health insurance only. This leaves the particulars up to the individual and the insurance companies and maintains the free market system. There are other ways I am sure to do this.
There is a break in the hay hauling for a few days.
Roger




-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: 07/12/14 15:25
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

Like single payer?

Sunil


> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:58:35 -0700
> To: lfalen at turbonet.com; suehovey at moscow.com; kmmos1 at frontier.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> From: lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
>
> It would be best if all benefits were portable and not tied to an employer.
> Roger
>
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
> >From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>, "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1 at frontier.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
> >Date: 07/12/14 08:56:04
> >
> >Health care is not a right, No where in the Constitution is it listed as such. Particularly not one that an employer must provide. If they want to do so that should be their call.
> >I am busy hauling hay and do not have time to respond to any thing on the vis. for the time being.
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
> >>From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>
> >>To: "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1 at frontier.com>, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>Date: 07/10/14 06:49:06
> >>
> >>Roger's comment: I am not into
> >>> forcing anyone to do anything, with a few exceptions such as paying taxes.
> >>> Forcing some one to pay for the consequences of some one else's pleasure
> >>> is the opposite of separation of church and state. To claim otherwise is
> >>> Orwellian.
> >>
> >>My take on it, and ultimately I believe most citizens will stand here: To
> >>allow an employer to deny an employee an otherwise guaranteed employment
> >>right, based on the employer's religious convictions, is a direct violation
> >>of the separation of church and state. And it isn't Orwellian, it should
> >>be a First Amendment Protection. If this decision and the injunction
> >>allowed Wheaton College are allowed to stand there will be little to keep an
> >>employer from denying other employment benefits. Of course, maybe this will
> >>move us closer to a single payer system not based on employment. That would
> >>be good.
> >>
> >>Sue H.
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Kenneth Marcy
> >>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:52 PM
> >>To: lfalen ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
> >>
> >>
> >>On 7/9/2014 6:06 PM, lfalen wrote:
> >>> The SCOTUS decision was in favor of the separation of church and state.
> >>> This is not a disease. Why should someone else pay for the consequences of
> >>> your pleasure. Abstinence is only one option. I agree that not many will
> >>> use it. I listed others. If an Insurance Company wants to offer a birth
> >>> control policy, fine. If someone wants to buy it, fine. If some one wants
> >>> to provide it free, fine. I am not into forcing anyone to do anything,
> >>> with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. Forcing some one to pay for
> >>> the consequences of some one else's pleasure is the opposite of separation
> >>> of church and state. To claim otherwise is Orwellian.
> >>> Roger
> >>
> >>Interesting. So, then, you are in favor of higher taxes on families
> >>with more children, right? Certainly those who have no or just one or
> >>two children should not be subsidizing those who have three, four, five,
> >>six, ... need the multiplications of the masses of the various pleasure
> >>promoting pulpits be repeated, begat after begat, yet again? To avoid
> >>Orwellianism certainly you would be in favor of removing a standard
> >>deduction for child number three, and the second standard deduction for
> >>child number four, and then adding to taxable income a standard
> >>deduction for child number five, and adding a similar amount for child
> >>number six, etc., etc., to the limits of the procreative prowess of the
> >>fruitful multiplicity, correct?
> >>
> >>
> >>Ken
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>=======================================================
> >>List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>=======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >=======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >=======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
 
 
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140714/01e72e26/attachment.html>