Utah businesses lacking in health care coverage

[_Moniker]

For instance. I give to a few charities and I want to know that my money goes to those that are in need. I actually spent quite a bit of time researching various charities before I ever give a cent. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a charitable organization where the money goes, if it goes for the intended recipients, and if there is low overhead. http://www.give.org/

Would I ever want to give that money to the Federal Government? You have gotta be kidding me! And I think most Americans realize that if you want your money siphoned off into bureaucracy and overhead you give to the government.

Again, I don't get your point...

Is it that the candidates and platforms aren't talking about third world poverty? I think that is a wise move because most Americans would guffaw at the idea of the Fed. Govt. acting appropriately with funds that were supposed to go to those in need.

[_bcspace]

It's never good to force employers to provide insurance etc. Better for the ee buy it on their own tax free and have the employer reimburse the difference as the cost per person on their plans are almost always much more than if the ee got it themselves.

[_asbestosman]

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

I do not consider the chuch to be a charitable organization. The church does not exist to give people food, shelter, etc. any more than the government does. The church provides much charity, but that is not its purpose. I would donate just as much to the church if it didn't give a dime to the poor. I would also work just as hard doing what I can for the poor. I see the two as very different.

But hey, if the government isn't a charitable organization, then perhaps it shouldn't concern itself with healthcare leaving that instead to charitable organizations. After all, healthcare seems to be more the concern of charities, no?

Would I ever want to give that money to the Federal Government? You have gotta be kidding me! And I think most Americans realize that if you want your money siphoned off into bureaucracy and overhead you give to the government.

This almost sounds like a good reason for the government to NOT give Americans healthcare.

Again, I don't get your point...

Is governmental healthcare really the right thing to do, especially in light of all the other things we perhaps ought to put money to? If the government taxes us for healthcare, then I have less to donate to charity for problems that are even worse the American healthcare system.

My point has 0, zippo, nadda to do with the church's finances. The only connection is that the church's finances started my chain of thought down the path.

[_Moniker]

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

I do not consider the chuch to be a charitable organization. The church does not exist to give people food, shelter, etc. any more than the government does. The church provides much charity, but that is not its purpose. I would donate just as much to the church if it didn't give a dime to the poor. I would also work just as hard doing what I can for the poor. I see the two as very different.

The federal government thinks the LDS Church is a charitable organization:

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable ... 99,00.html

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Here's the letter from the IRS showing the tax exempt status under 501(c)(3)

http://www.salamandersociety.com/legal/ ... 0-1978.doc


Anyway, it doesn't really matter to my overall point. The Church has one function and the government something completely different.

]But hey, if the government isn't a charitable organization, then perhaps it shouldn't concern itself with healthcare leaving that instead to charitable organizations. After all, healthcare seems to be more the concern of charities, no?

No.

Is governmental healthcare really the right thing to do, especially in light of all the other things we perhaps ought to put money to? If the government taxes us for healthcare, then I have less to donate to charity for problems that are even worse the American healthcare system.

My point has 0, zippo, nadda to do with the church's finances. The only connection is that the church's finances started my chain of thought down the path.

You're sorta grumpy this evening? I wonder where you figure I said one thing in any of my posts about health care and assume you know my position on it or the role of government when it comes to health care?? I think it's incredibly complicated. When one action is taken there are usually unintended consequences when it comes to government programs. I've heard a few viable options, yet they all have downfalls.

Were you really upset that some criticized the Church's expenditures when it came to building temples? I understand, if you were. Is this why you felt the need to shift this debate to ask the critics why they felt the need to criticize the Church for charitable expenditures and not their own government?

Anyway, back to the point about government doing charitable work outside the USA. I think if there was more debt relief, assistance, and more intervention in humanitarian aid that would create more stability in the world and would be proactive in the national security interests of our nation. I just am not too sure the electorate sees it that way. Feeding kids or interjecting in 3rd world countries is not something that is on platforms because (unfortunately) politicians don't frame the debate in this way -- nor promote this type of proactive intervention. They would never be voted into office most likely, and no politician (except the brave few that start to shift the debate) will talk out on these sort of issues -- and these candidates are usually seen as fringe. Politics is about pandering -- and talking about charity with the people's money is not a good way to garner votes.

Anyway, what is this thread about? ;)

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I do not know the details of what he wants to do but when he stumps and in debates he does refer to doing something nationally similar to what he did in Mass.

[_The Nehor]

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?

The problem is the demand will never go away. If we give up all comfort until everyone has it we're adding one more cold, naked, and smelly person to the world.

[_why me]

During my young adult radical days in the 1970's, I was a supporter of National Health Care for the USA. Many of my fellow Americans told me to move to Russia and had bitter arguments with me. Now that I live in a country with a national health care system, I can only feel sympathy for my fellow Americans. I have an illness that is not life threatening but yet, it is covered by the state insurance system. Hence, I pay almost nothing at all for the medicine and for the supplies.

Now that I am an old radical, I still would support a national health care system for the US. However, americans are rather shy about government involvement in their lives. Thus, the americans will continue to have private health care. Where I am, there is private and public heath care. There is a choice.

My employer pays 100% of my health coverage for minor happenings and the state kicks in for the major stuff. In other words, I have no fear of paying the bill or loosing the home.

[_The Nehor]

I also think there needs to be responsibility taken and the blame for the Health Care crisis placed on those responsible......THE SICK!!!!!

[_Jason Bourne]

]During my young adult radical days in the 1970's, I was a supporter of National Health Care for the USA. Many of my fellow Americans told me to move to Russia and had bitter arguments with me. Now that I live in a country with a national health care system, I can only feel sympathy for my fellow Americans. I have an illness that is not life threatening but yet, it is covered by the state insurance system. Hence, I pay almost nothing at all for the medicine and for the supplies.

you do pay for health care. It is not free. If is a national system you pay taxes for it.

Now that I am an old radical, I still would support a national health care system for the US. However, americans are rather shy about government involvement in their lives. Thus, the americans will continue to have private health care. Where I am, there is private and public heath care. There is a choice.

The winds are shifting. The Government already subsidizes health care by not taxing health insurance if is a fringe benefit. Also, more and more Health Care providers are providing low cost high deductible insurance tied to Health Saving Account (HSAs). The amount you put in an HSA is tax deductible up to $5800 per year. You can use this to pay your deductibles and co pays. It is really a nice plan and puts management of one's health care more on their shoulders.

[_why me]

]During my young adult radical days in the 1970's, I was a supporter of National Health Care for the USA. Many of my fellow Americans told me to move to Russia and had bitter arguments with me. Now that I live in a country with a national health care system, I can only feel sympathy for my fellow Americans. I have an illness that is not life threatening but yet, it is covered by the state insurance system. Hence, I pay almost nothing at all for the medicine and for the supplies.

you do pay for health care. It is not free. If is a national system you pay taxes for it.

Actually, the taxes are not that bad in many cases. Our salaries are not that high but with no reason to buy health insurance and have other added expenses due to government intervention, they don't have to be.