If Obamacare DOES pass, what should each of us do then?

What's weird is that you judge all gay people on one act: anal intercourse, you accuse me of it, and now you are introducing the drinking of uring as a dessert. I'm not the one who brought up the subject, DOT, it was YOU.


Again the alzheimers syndrome. Did you not say that the Bible does not condemn the use of ALL orifices for sexual pleasure? Guess since that was in another thread that means you did not say it.


No, but didn't He say that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven? In Luke 12:33 He advises that one should sell their belongings and give the money to the poor.


And that has what to do with the government forcing one to give money to give not to the poor, but to the lazy, and the slothful?

How much do you think that those who are proposing these programs actually give of their own money to charity? For Biden it is 3/10's of 1% according to his tax filings. For BO it is around 1%. Study after study has shown that Conservative Christians actually give more of their own money, and time, then any left winger, or Athiest.

Would say the same thing of them, Bill Gates, Buffet, Soros, etc.?


(That sounds pretty liberal to me, especially in light of the fact that there are nearly 2000 references in the Bible to caring for the poor, unfortunate, and sick.)


Only if you voluntarily use your own money, not that of others. Where did Christ say to force others to care for the poor? However, you condemn those that do such as Robertson, Falwell, Graham, Dobson, etc.



Actually, no He didn't..... Jesus never defined marriage specifically


Told you to find another source for your talking points.

Matthew 19:4-6 "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female and said 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

So, from Genesis 2:23, 24, to Revelation, it has always been the same. Read also 1 Cor. 6:16; 7:2,3; 1Timothy 3: 2, 12; etc.


Not one time have you given an example of my "perverting" a scripture. So I say this is just another rectal reclamation unless you give quotes to prove your statement.


Already have, however, I am not going to go back and find your posts about how David, and Jonathen, were homosexuals. You know what you said.


It's obvious that you're running out of things to say because your accusations are getting wilder and wilder. Expect Christians to be perfect? Give an example where I said or even implied that. What we are discussing is the persecution of gay people--that's it, not abortion or the Catholics or whatever other weird subject you come up with randomly. Stick to the subject. Oh, and by the way, I've done nothing to any Christian, not a thing. You don't even have to read my posts, so please stop prevaricating.

Just as I have done here I respond to what you say. Just because you don't like having your BS exposed is not my problem.


How does your bloviation change the god-like simplicity of the 6 words?

Six words taken out of context, and where numerous additional words are contained in the same verses, does not an argument make.


No, you can't:


What? Surely you are not trying to say that a Christian has not the obligation to judge others especially those who also claim to be Christians?

From the establishment of Courts under Moses, to the writings of Paul, men have been called on to judge others with a "righteous judgement'. Like I told you, line upon line, precept upon precept.

I am willing to just talk politics with you until you start using your politics to force your religion on others.


Just keep repeating that lie. Some will believe even as you do.
 
Werbung:
Hilarious. The only thing missing is some ghosts & goblins to try and create this fictional horror story.

:D
DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek:

*

(Yep....."conservatives" are gettin' Medieval!!!!)

249.gif

"Speaking shortly after he riled up a crowd at Tuesday's Tea Party protest, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) declared that "demons" - yes, demons - have invaded the capital (and likely the souls of Democrats), forcing lawmakers to mislead the public about the content of the health care bill."
 
There's lots of debate over whether the Fed Govt should take over Health Care, and to what extent, etc.

Well, suppose it does happen. What do we do then?

Several proposals are out there. Most seem to have several things in common:

1.) Health care insurance will now be mandatory for everyone. If you don't want to sign up, you will be assessed a fine, maybe around the level of $700 per year.

2.) Employers will also face a similar choice. It might depend on how many employees they have. They can either provide insurance for their employees, or they can pay a similar fine to the government for each employee they DON'T insure.

3.) All insurance companies will be required to offer insurance that complies with new government standards, including to anyone who has a pre-existing condition. People who want to sign up, who already have a condition the insurance must pay for (broken arm, diabetes, cancer, other long-term chronic condition etc.), cannot be refused coverage due to that pre-existing condition.

Everyone wants, naturally, to minimize the costs they have to pay, while maintaining sufficient security in case bad things happen.

With these factors in mind, it becomes clear what companies must do, and what each individual should do.

A) We should each drop our present health insurance, as soon as possible. It will cost less to simply pay the annual fine. If you're getting your health insurance thru your employer, negotiate with them to start paying the amount they spend on your policy, directly to you in your paycheck instead. You might find that your employer is soon dropping ALL insurance policies, since it will cost them less to pay their fine too.

B) If/when you incur some major medical problem, THEN go to an insurance company and sign up. The problem you came down with, is now a pre-existing condition... but under the new rules, the insurance company cannot refuse you. They will sign you up for the normal coverage, on the spot, and most of your expenses will be paid for. You will pay the normal premiums during the time they are paying for your medical care, which are far less than your paying for the care yourself.

C) When your condition is cured, drop the insurance, go back to paying only the annual fine (which is much less than the premiums) and wait for the next major malady to come along. If one comes, then sign up for insurance again, after it's diagnosed. Again, they cannot refuse you.

This will get you the security of being able to have insurance pay for anything bad that comes along, while minimizing the amount you have to pay. A win-win situation all around, wouldn't you say?

Of course, how this system will be able to support itself, with basically nobody paying premiums (except the relatively small fine) until they have a condition where they will draw out much more than they pay in, might be a problem. But it's not YOUR problem. Government is handling it. Let them worry.

Comments/questions?
Even your communists Cuban adversaries have govt funded healthcare and the sky did not fall in. But let's not let those socialists control your health. Keep stumping up millions so capitalist doctors buy more mansions.
 
There's lots of debate over whether the Fed Govt should take over Health Care, and to what extent, etc.

Well, suppose it does happen. What do we do then?

Several proposals are out there. Most seem to have several things in common:

1.) Health care insurance will now be mandatory for everyone. If you don't want to sign up, you will be assessed a fine, maybe around the level of $700 per year.

2.) Employers will also face a similar choice. It might depend on how many employees they have. They can either provide insurance for their employees, or they can pay a similar fine to the government for each employee they DON'T insure.

3.) All insurance companies will be required to offer insurance that complies with new government standards, including to anyone who has a pre-existing condition. People who want to sign up, who already have a condition the insurance must pay for (broken arm, diabetes, cancer, other long-term chronic condition etc.), cannot be refused coverage due to that pre-existing condition.

Everyone wants, naturally, to minimize the costs they have to pay, while maintaining sufficient security in case bad things happen.

With these factors in mind, it becomes clear what companies must do, and what each individual should do.

A) We should each drop our present health insurance, as soon as possible. It will cost less to simply pay the annual fine. If you're getting your health insurance thru your employer, negotiate with them to start paying the amount they spend on your policy, directly to you in your paycheck instead. You might find that your employer is soon dropping ALL insurance policies, since it will cost them less to pay their fine too.

B) If/when you incur some major medical problem, THEN go to an insurance company and sign up. The problem you came down with, is now a pre-existing condition... but under the new rules, the insurance company cannot refuse you. They will sign you up for the normal coverage, on the spot, and most of your expenses will be paid for. You will pay the normal premiums during the time they are paying for your medical care, which are far less than your paying for the care yourself.

C) When your condition is cured, drop the insurance, go back to paying only the annual fine (which is much less than the premiums) and wait for the next major malady to come along. If one comes, then sign up for insurance again, after it's diagnosed. Again, they cannot refuse you.

This will get you the security of being able to have insurance pay for anything bad that comes along, while minimizing the amount you have to pay. A win-win situation all around, wouldn't you say?

Of course, how this system will be able to support itself, with basically nobody paying premiums (except the relatively small fine) until they have a condition where they will draw out much more than they pay in, might be a problem. But it's not YOUR problem. Government is handling it. Let them worry.

Comments/questions?
Don't sign up. Tens of millions of Americans told Obama to stuff his "you can keep your doctor's" lies up his 3rd point of contact.
 
Don't sign up. Tens of millions of Americans told Obama to stuff his "you can keep your doctor's" lies up his 3rd point of contact.
If only USA had fully funded universal health care like Cuba and Britian and Australia.
The irony is it's the countries that are most vocal against it have never experienced it.
 
If only USA had fully funded universal health care like Cuba and Britian and Australia.
The irony is it's the countries that are most vocal against it have never experienced it.
The most vocal opponents of communism in America are survivors of foreign communism.

1715793562739.png


1715793603340.png

1715793634360.png


1715793671248.png


1715793707243.png


1715793745496.png
 
My point still remains correct and your silly pics can't alter that.
Socialist rubes who know nothing of the damages caused by socialism and communism around the world in the last hundred years still foolishly believe government provision of free universal healthcare for all legal and illegal occupants on US soil would a step forward in the right direction.

1715810932603.jpeg

1715810988790.png


1715811024938.png
 
Socialist rubes who know nothing of the damages caused by socialism and communism around the world in the last hundred years still foolishly believe government provision of free universal healthcare for all legal and illegal occupants on US soil would a step forward in the right direction.

View attachment 13580

View attachment 13581


View attachment 13582
You're quite happy to accept every other socialist facility but object to universal health care.
Where's the logic in that?

Did your wife not spit out those kids in a hospital? There's your socialism son. How's that hypocrisy going?
 
Werbung:
You're quite happy to accept every other socialist facility but object to universal health care.
Where's the logic in that?

Did your wife not spit out those kids in a hospital? There's your socialism son. How's that hypocrisy going?
Some programs attributed to socialism are good and some are not good. Spending trillions of dollars on 'free' healthcare while the country is drowning in deep debt is not wise.
 
Back
Top