Utah businesses lacking in health care coverage

[_The Nehor]

well to do Mormons don't give a damn about the serfs that work for them. Why should they avoid family ski trips to Aspen just so a bunch of less diligent people can get medical care?

I say screw the working classes. They must have been fence sitters with one leg on elohims lawn, that's why they are not business owners.

Family wealth and prosperity is intrinsically linked to perceived spirituality in Mormon culture. There is no getting around that.

You either lived in the weirdest area ever or you are crazy.

This is the part of your replies in which you deny.

I've had 3 Bishops since I came home. One was making a decent living in Telecommunications, one was doing okay working some contract work, and the last owns businesses all over. Mixture........possible.

This is the part where you cannot disprove anything I am saying.

Falsify my evidence if you want to have a conversation with me Nehor.

Okay, you're a pathological liar and this is just a symptom. The Spirit whispers this to me and tells me it is true.

[_The Nehor]

Is revised health care anywhere on Mitt's radar?

Yep

He had a fairly succesful health care plan in Mass.

So tell me, how does this reflect badly on the LDS Church? How many of the businesses are owned by LDS? How many are not?

Will the plan scale? I bet it won't.

You're just a font of optimism aren't you?

[_asbestosman]

Is revised health care anywhere on Mitt's radar?

Yep

He had a fairly succesful health care plan in Mass.

Last I heard, Mitt wanted to leave it to states to work out deals with insurance companies. To me that sounded like "I'm a republican now." However, I also heard that there is good reasoning behind why he would want to leave it to the states--that it would be more economical because different companies would have more chances to fight for and lure different states.

[_Mercury]

Is revised health care anywhere on Mitt's radar?

Yep

He had a fairly succesful health care plan in Mass.

Last I heard, Mitt wanted to leave it to states to work out deals with insurance companies. To me that sounded like "I'm a republican now." However, I also heard that there is good reasoning behind why he would want to leave it to the states--that it would be more economical because different companies would have more chances to fight for and lure different states.

Yah, because the current system is socialist paradise. Were already using capitalism. HMO's are killing people with capitalism.

Patient:
"My doctor says I need a heart transplant"

HMO Account Rep:
"I'm sorry sir, you just don't meet the criteria for a heart transplant. If you die because of it, just remember this monetary ammount we were willing to pay and think about it. NEXT!!"

[_asbestosman]

Healthcare is a tricky business. Different people have different ideas about what is necessary. Transplants may be crucial for life, but what about dental work? Is it life threatening? What about corrective lenses--there are cheap ones and there are expensive ones. There are also people like me who only need lenses for driving which I rarely do. Should government health care cover that? Does it make sense to keep grandma hooked up as a vegetable--yet who'd be so heartless as to actually pull the plug?

Universal health care sounds great, but I always wonder who will foot the bill. Are we all willing to pay lots more in taxes? Maybe it doesn't matter and we should. Even then we still need to ask what will be covered. Either way, I think something needs to change. HMO's are often ridiculous.

[_asbestosman]

Speaking of health care, which is more important: healthcare for Americans, or feeding the starving kids around the world? I mean, remember how evil the church is for spending "extra" on imported goods for temples because of the starving kids around the world. How evil would Americans be for spending more on their own health when that money could easily feed many starving kids? Is it better to spend several thousands of $$$ so grandpa can get a liver transplant, or would it be better to spend that money so that hundreds of kids can have something to eat?

Life is full of evil decisions like that. We will say that we need to choose both because that's the "right" answer. If only reality were that easy. Are you willing to have your automobile and home taken away in the name of healthcare? No? I hope you're not just expecting everyone else to pay but you.

And yet, I still think something needs to change. I hate HMO's.

[_Moniker]

Speaking of health care, which is more important: healthcare for Americans, or feeding the starving kids around the world? I mean, remember how evil the church is for spending "extra" on imported goods for temples because of the starving kids around the world. How evil would Americans be for spending more on their own health when that money could easily feed many starving kids? Is it better to spend several thousands of $$$ so grandpa can get a liver transplant, or would it be better to spend that money so that hundreds of kids can have something to eat?

Life is full of evil decisions like that. We will say that we need to choose both because that's the "right" answer. If only reality were that easy. Are you willing to have your automobile and home taken away in the name of healthcare? No? I hope you're not just expecting everyone else to pay but you.

And yet, I still think something needs to change. I hate HMO's.

Hmm.. Asbestosman, you're equating health care for Americans (including uninsured children) to the LDS Church's expenditures on gratuitous luxuries inside their temples.

That doesn't work for me. :)

[_asbestosman]

Hmm.. Asbestosman, you're equating health care for Americans (including uninsured children) to the LDS Church's expenditures on gratuitous luxuries inside their temples.

No. The one comparison reminded me of another we don't hear as many complaints about. The comparison of gratuitous luxurious to starving kids reminded me about how selfish Americans are: we would rather have national health care than to feed starving non-American kids. It's true that many Americans do much to feed starving kids worldwide, but when it comes to political platforms, I hear more about American health care than I do about a possibly more pressing matter--helping the poor in third world countries even though the latter probably costs far less (how many cents does it cost to feed them again?)

[_Scottie]

Speaking of health care, which is more important: healthcare for Americans, or feeding the starving kids around the world? I mean, remember how evil the church is for spending "extra" on imported goods for temples because of the starving kids around the world. How evil would Americans be for spending more on their own health when that money could easily feed many starving kids? Is it better to spend several thousands of $$$ so grandpa can get a liver transplant, or would it be better to spend that money so that hundreds of kids can have something to eat?

Life is full of evil decisions like that. We will say that we need to choose both because that's the "right" answer. If only reality were that easy. Are you willing to have your automobile and home taken away in the name of healthcare? No? I hope you're not just expecting everyone else to pay but you.

And yet, I still think something needs to change. I hate HMO's.

You make an interesting point. Exactly how far do we go in sacrificing our luxuries in order to provide the simple necessities for the impoverished parts of the world?

Would you be willing to sacrifice hot showers in order to provide basic lifesaving immunizations for hundreds of children?

[_Moniker]

Hmm.. Asbestosman, you're equating health care for Americans (including uninsured children) to the LDS Church's expenditures on gratuitous luxuries inside their temples.

No. The one comparison reminded me of another we don't hear as many complaints about. The comparison of gratuitous luxurious to starving kids reminded me about how selfish Americans are: we would rather have national health care than to feed starving non-American kids. It's true that many Americans do much to feed starving kids worldwide, but when it comes to political platforms, I hear more about American health care than I do about a possibly more pressing matter--helping the poor in third world countries even though the latter probably costs far less (how many cents does it cost to feed them again?)

Yet, the government is not set up to be a charity for other countries. The Church is a charitable organization.

I just don't understand your point, I suppose.

No doubt that Americans are self indulgent, can be selfish, and egocentric -- yet, equating government to a charitable organization (where they have different roles) just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Should Americans be more concerned about the rest of humanity? Yep! But, many aren't.

I think asking why a charitable organization spends lavishly on structures that stay within the Church (while having a charitable status) is a valid question/concern. Is there waste and mismanagement in government? ABSOLUTELY! And when there is there are outcries and every so often a rebellion from the leviathan of bureaucracy. Yet, the two entities are diametrically opposed to one another as to their function.