Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Easy questions to answer: Yes, I would opt out of Medicare if I had a choice. I would pay for my own insurance. If I wasn't being forced to pay for others' healthcare, along with their unemployment for months on end and on and on, I could easily afford to pay for my own. Get the government out of the private sector and costs will come down. As for the military, I would love to have them getting healthcare in the private sector, instead of government run VA. I would gladly continue to pay for their healthcare. In the private sector they would get much better care than they do now. Who would choose Medicare over VA if they had a choice! Those two types of government run healthcare show how poorly the government runs anything. Simple answers. This is NOT a democracy! America is a constitutional republic (very different) of self-governance, under the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of man). The rule of law that was expected to remain the rule when the nation was founded, by the way, was that found in the pages of the Bible. Judeo-Christian principles. Quoteworthy: " The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in their image. Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?... If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its Founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe. " -Dennis Prager Re: Grrrr > > > >>> > > > >>> I'd like to clarify a couple statements. ADA is not > " pushing " a > > > >>> particular platform. What our professional organization > would like > > > >>> is > > > >>> for the RD to be included in whatever the reform package > looks like. > > > >>> I'm sure we'd all like to be recognized as competent health > care > > > >>> providers regardless of who is paying. > > > >>> > > > >>> As for who is paying, I'd venture to guess, it will be the > same as > > > >>> previously; all of us. At this point there is some talk about > > > >>> raising > > > >>> taxes, but only for the very highest income levels, and > (although I > > > >>> am > > > >>> not entirely sure on this one), some of the business taxes > for large > > > >>> employers. Remember that we should believe half of what we > see and > > > >>> none of what we " hear " , particularly when it comes to > emotional > > > >>> issues > > > >>> such as this one. Please try to vet what you " hear " through a > > > >>> reliable > > > >>> source. > > > >>> > > > >>> Here is my own personal wish for health reform; that no one > in the > > > >>> United States has to go to bed worrying about how to pay for > > > >>> medication, a Dr's visit, or their next RD appointment. That > we all > > > >>> have access to healthcare that is of the highest quality, > regardless > > > >>> of our financial and employment situation. And finally, that > no one > > > >>> faces financial ruin simply because they had the misfortune > to lose > > > >>> their job and/or get sick. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year, > > > >>> > > > >>> pam > > > >>> > > > >>> Pam Charney, PhD, RD > > > >>> Affiliate Associate Professor > > > >>> Pharmacy > > > >>> > > > >>> MS Student > > > >>> Clinical Informatics and Patient Centered Technology > > > >>> School of Nursing > > > >>> > > > >>> University of Washington > > > >>> Seattle, WA > > > >>> pcharney@... <pcharney%40mac.com> <pcharney%40mac.com> > > > > > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/pamcharney > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Exactly. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Grrrr > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > ADA, I am > > > >>>> still a > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > difficult to > > > >>>> put > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > However > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion is > > > >>>>> getting > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more " Late- > > > >>>> breaking news > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > is about > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > >>>>> political > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > organization > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than the > > > >>>> other. I am > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > professional > > > >>>> organization > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > thought > > > >>>> I would > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Carol > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > try. " ~ > > > >>>> Dolly > > > >>>>> Parton > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. We pay enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you call this " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can afford to pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our hands full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same boat as us. Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, pcharney@... writes: I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I cannot be so self-involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 , Just so you're aware, for most individuals who do not have a trust fund or other source of income far beyond what most RDs are currently making, it can cost upwards of $10,000 per month (that's right, per month) for some chemotherapeutic agents. Let's say you're lucky and don't get cancer, but you need surgery requiring a two night stay in the hospital. Right now, we're talking over $10,000 for that. Other medications can cost upwards of thousands per month. Remember that Medicare is intended for retirees, so you won't have your current income to help out, rather you'll be relying on savings and perhaps a pension, but one shouldn't rely on a pension, or on employer-sponsored health insurance in retirement, as those benefits are often cut. So, if you have the funds to do so, fine, you can opt out. You do not have to accept Medicare. How would you gladly pay for the VA if not government run? Should we all chip in? As I mentioned earlier, I spent a chunk of last year studying how healthcare is funded for active duty military and retirees. Lacking a centralized method, it would be an incredibly complex undertaking. It's easy to say we should scrap it, but not so easy to come up with a workable alternative. ly, all I've heard from this list is how much current legislation is hated but nothing to say how to work together to improve things. I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I cannot be so self-involved. I will not discuss your theories related to the founding of this nation, rather I rely on accurate historical accounts. Pam Charney pcharney@... > Easy questions to answer: Yes, I would opt out of Medicare if I had > a choice. I would pay for my own insurance. If I wasn't being forced > to pay for others' healthcare, along with their unemployment for > months on end and on and on, I could easily afford to pay for my > own. Get the government out of the private sector and costs will > come down. As for the military, I would love to have them getting > healthcare in the private sector, instead of government run VA. I > would gladly continue to pay for their healthcare. In the private > sector they would get much better care than they do now. Who would > choose Medicare over VA if they had a choice! Those two types of > government run healthcare show how poorly the government runs > anything. Simple answers. > > This is NOT a democracy! America is a constitutional republic (very > different) of self-governance, under the rule of law (as opposed to > the rule of man). The rule of law that was expected to remain the > rule when the nation was founded, by the way, was that found in the > pages of the Bible. Judeo-Christian principles. > > Quoteworthy: " The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were > religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined > liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions > and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially > the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular > individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in > their image. Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for > people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that > happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold > Judeo-Christian values?... If America abandons its Judeo-Christian > values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian > Bibles, its Founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, > including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the > Jews of secular Europe. " -Dennis Prager > > Re: Grrrr > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'd like to clarify a couple statements. ADA is not > > " pushing " a > > > > >>> particular platform. What our professional organization > > would like > > > > >>> is > > > > >>> for the RD to be included in whatever the reform package > > looks like. > > > > >>> I'm sure we'd all like to be recognized as competent health > > care > > > > >>> providers regardless of who is paying. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As for who is paying, I'd venture to guess, it will be the > > same as > > > > >>> previously; all of us. At this point there is some talk > about > > > > >>> raising > > > > >>> taxes, but only for the very highest income levels, and > > (although I > > > > >>> am > > > > >>> not entirely sure on this one), some of the business taxes > > for large > > > > >>> employers. Remember that we should believe half of what we > > see and > > > > >>> none of what we " hear " , particularly when it comes to > > emotional > > > > >>> issues > > > > >>> such as this one. Please try to vet what you " hear " > through a > > > > >>> reliable > > > > >>> source. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Here is my own personal wish for health reform; that no one > > in the > > > > >>> United States has to go to bed worrying about how to pay for > > > > >>> medication, a Dr's visit, or their next RD appointment. That > > we all > > > > >>> have access to healthcare that is of the highest quality, > > regardless > > > > >>> of our financial and employment situation. And finally, that > > no one > > > > >>> faces financial ruin simply because they had the misfortune > > to lose > > > > >>> their job and/or get sick. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> pam > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Pam Charney, PhD, RD > > > > >>> Affiliate Associate Professor > > > > >>> Pharmacy > > > > >>> > > > > >>> MS Student > > > > >>> Clinical Informatics and Patient Centered Technology > > > > >>> School of Nursing > > > > >>> > > > > >>> University of Washington > > > > >>> Seattle, WA > > > > >>> pcharney@... <pcharney%40mac.com> <pcharney%40mac.com> > > > > > > > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/pamcharney > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Exactly. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Grrrr > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > > ADA, I am > > > > >>>> still a > > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > > difficult to > > > > >>>> put > > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > > However > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion > is > > > > >>>>> getting > > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more > " Late- > > > > >>>> breaking news > > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > > is about > > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > > >>>>> political > > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > > organization > > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than > the > > > > >>>> other. I am > > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > > professional > > > > >>>> organization > > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > > thought > > > > >>>> I would > > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Carol > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > > try. " ~ > > > > >>>> Dolly > > > > >>>>> Parton > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 My thing is this. Does it really have to cost $10K for a month of a particular chemotherapeutic drug? Or 2 nights in the hospital? If the costs were more realistic, no matter what system (private insurance or gov't), we would all be able to manage the costs better. Because of the way the system works now, providers have to inflate their costs because insurance only pays a fraction of it. But if you don't have insurance, you have to pay the whole thing, even though it is much more than the actual cost plus a nice profit margin. And if you accept insurance, you aren't supposed to make deals with those who pay cash. Last summer, both my husband and one of my daughters had some very small cavities filled by their dentist. They were both in the dentist office less than 20 minutes. The charge was $390 for each of them (we have good insurance, but no dental). I called to inquire about this (I couldn't believe that charge was right). Of course, the charge was right. I asked the billing person what they would get, on average, from insurance companies for those patients who had this type of charge and they said about half. I asked if I could come in that day, pay cash money and get the same discount or even a lesser discount--no waiting for their money, not even a check to cash. They said they couldn't do it. So this is the kind of thing that irks me. The total health care cost would be less if we could really have a fairer system, I think a capitalistic system. Doctors could charge what they think is fair, insurance would pay a portion and we would pay the rest. If the doctor (insert any other healthcare provider in that space instead of doctor if you like) was exceptional, he/she might charge more, because he/she is worth more. Maybe we would have to pay more to see him/her or maybe he/she could prove to insurance cos. their worth, and insurance cos. would cover that doc at a higher rate. I just put together a 9 pound dossier to make a case for my promotion from assistant professor to associate professor. No, it was not fun and I did not enjoy spending part of my holiday days off doing it. But I did it. All jobs have hoops you have to jump through. Why couldn't docs/providers do the same to prove their worth? And why won't our lawmakers address tort reform? This is another thing that drives health care costs up astronomically. The people are asking for it, but the lawmakers turn a deaf ear. Oh yeah, because most of them have a law degree and when/if they get back into the private sector, they won't be able to make a living if other lawyers think they have been sold out by them. But if they can't do what their constituents want they should be booted out of there. We have to boot them out of there. I don't care what political party they are from, if they don't do what we are asking them to, they should be out. I am so tired of the alignment to the party first, or to some other group.... Sorry to be rambling, but since we're talking about all this, thought I'd throw in my 2 cents... , MS, RD, LDN Memphis, TN Re: Grrrr > > > >>> > > > >>> I'd like to clarify a couple statements. ADA is not > " pushing " a > > > >>> particular platform. What our professional organization > would like > > > >>> is > > > >>> for the RD to be included in whatever the reform package > looks like. > > > >>> I'm sure we'd all like to be recognized as competent health > care > > > >>> providers regardless of who is paying. > > > >>> > > > >>> As for who is paying, I'd venture to guess, it will be the > same as > > > >>> previously; all of us. At this point there is some talk about > > > >>> raising > > > >>> taxes, but only for the very highest income levels, and > (although I > > > >>> am > > > >>> not entirely sure on this one), some of the business taxes > for large > > > >>> employers. Remember that we should believe half of what we > see and > > > >>> none of what we " hear " , particularly when it comes to > emotional > > > >>> issues > > > >>> such as this one. Please try to vet what you " hear " through a > > > >>> reliable > > > >>> source. > > > >>> > > > >>> Here is my own personal wish for health reform; that no one > in the > > > >>> United States has to go to bed worrying about how to pay for > > > >>> medication, a Dr's visit, or their next RD appointment. That > we all > > > >>> have access to healthcare that is of the highest quality, > regardless > > > >>> of our financial and employment situation. And finally, that > no one > > > >>> faces financial ruin simply because they had the misfortune > to lose > > > >>> their job and/or get sick. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year, > > > >>> > > > >>> pam > > > >>> > > > >>> Pam Charney, PhD, RD > > > >>> Affiliate Associate Professor > > > >>> Pharmacy > > > >>> > > > >>> MS Student > > > >>> Clinical Informatics and Patient Centered Technology > > > >>> School of Nursing > > > >>> > > > >>> University of Washington > > > >>> Seattle, WA > > > >>> pcharney@... <pcharney%40mac.com> <pcharney%40mac.com> > > > > > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/pamcharney > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Exactly. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Grrrr > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > ADA, I am > > > >>>> still a > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > difficult to > > > >>>> put > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > However > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion is > > > >>>>> getting > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more " Late- > > > >>>> breaking news > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > is about > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > >>>>> political > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > organization > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than the > > > >>>> other. I am > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > professional > > > >>>> organization > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > thought > > > >>>> I would > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Carol > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > try. " ~ > > > >>>> Dolly > > > >>>>> Parton > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Military health care? Of course we should all chip in. Doesn't have to be government run healthcare for that. People get care whethere they can pay or not in America. No on egos without healthcare. Do the wealthy get better care? Sure they do. Read the bill of rights and you won't find goods and services listed there. You will in socialist countries, though, including the former USSR. I don't talk about theories when I speak of the nation's founding, just facts and historical documents. Below are just a few for you. I have much more on file. 1853 HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. 24 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity? 25 In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared: [T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 26 On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to " designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation " 27 because: incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation. 28 (emphasis added) President Lincoln quickly complied with that request, 29 and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America's history. 30 Justice ph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court 31 and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a " Father of American Jurisprudence. " Justice Story openly declared: One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. .. . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 32 His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward: In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. 33 Justice McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President . McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous: For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures. 34 Justice Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President on, agreed. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Brewer declared: We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation - in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 35 Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations: We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, " these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. " 36 Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation. He concluded: have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37 Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared: I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country. 38 There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation - including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was " a Christian country, " 39 filled with " Christian people, " 40 and was indeed " a Christian nation. " 41 Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements 42 but so, too, have American Presidents - as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring: This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision]. 43 In addition to its " Christian nation " declarations, the Supreme Court also regularly relied on Christian principles as the basis of its rulings on issues such as marriage, citizenship, foreign affairs, and domestic treaties. For example, when some federal territories attempted to introduce the practice of bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court disallowed those practices because: Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. 44 In another case, the Court similarly explained: The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . .. . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. 45 And when the issue arose of whether marriages made in foreign nations would be recognized in the United States, the federal court held that foreign marriages would be recognized only if they were not " contrary to the general view of Christendom. " 46 The Supreme Court also decided military service issues in accord with Christian principles and standards. For example, in 1931, when a Canadian immigrant refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Supreme Court explained why he was therefore excluded from citizenship: We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But also we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption (and safely can proceed upon no other) that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God. 47 Re: Grrrr > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'd like to clarify a couple statements. ADA is not > > " pushing " a > > > > >>> particular platform. What our professional organization > > would like > > > > >>> is > > > > >>> for the RD to be included in whatever the reform package > > looks like. > > > > >>> I'm sure we'd all like to be recognized as competent health > > care > > > > >>> providers regardless of who is paying. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As for who is paying, I'd venture to guess, it will be the > > same as > > > > >>> previously; all of us. At this point there is some talk > about > > > > >>> raising > > > > >>> taxes, but only for the very highest income levels, and > > (although I > > > > >>> am > > > > >>> not entirely sure on this one), some of the business taxes > > for large > > > > >>> employers. Remember that we should believe half of what we > > see and > > > > >>> none of what we " hear " , particularly when it comes to > > emotional > > > > >>> issues > > > > >>> such as this one. Please try to vet what you " hear " > through a > > > > >>> reliable > > > > >>> source. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Here is my own personal wish for health reform; that no one > > in the > > > > >>> United States has to go to bed worrying about how to pay for > > > > >>> medication, a Dr's visit, or their next RD appointment. That > > we all > > > > >>> have access to healthcare that is of the highest quality, > > regardless > > > > >>> of our financial and employment situation. And finally, that > > no one > > > > >>> faces financial ruin simply because they had the misfortune > > to lose > > > > >>> their job and/or get sick. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> pam > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Pam Charney, PhD, RD > > > > >>> Affiliate Associate Professor > > > > >>> Pharmacy > > > > >>> > > > > >>> MS Student > > > > >>> Clinical Informatics and Patient Centered Technology > > > > >>> School of Nursing > > > > >>> > > > > >>> University of Washington > > > > >>> Seattle, WA > > > > >>> pcharney@... <pcharney%40mac.com> <pcharney%40mac.com> > > > > > > > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/pamcharney > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Exactly. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Grrrr > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > > ADA, I am > > > > >>>> still a > > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > > difficult to > > > > >>>> put > > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > > However > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion > is > > > > >>>>> getting > > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more > " Late- > > > > >>>> breaking news > > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > > is about > > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > > >>>>> political > > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > > organization > > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than > the > > > > >>>> other. I am > > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > > professional > > > > >>>> organization > > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > > thought > > > > >>>> I would > > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Carol > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > > try. " ~ > > > > >>>> Dolly > > > > >>>>> Parton > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Good points everybody! Let us not forget the perhaps root problems (which so many of the well-stated comments on the issues have actually referred to)--corruption and " meism " . While the current administration has successfully positioned itself as fighting against self-interests and " meism " , I'm not convinced. My thought is if the " sides " keep arguing the ideas and issues and solutions without at least acknowledging the root issues such as corruption and self-interest (truly) we will only wind up with more band-aids. Respectfully appreciating this thread . . . Diane Preves, M.S., R.D. N.E.W. LIFE (Nutrition, Exercise, Wellness for LIFE) www.newlifeforhealth.com e-mail: newlife4health@..., newlife@... http://www.linkedin.com/in/newlifedianepreves http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Preves/1357243185 http://twitter.com/DianePreves Grrrr > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > ADA, I am > > > >>>> still a > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > difficult to > > > >>>> put > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > However > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion is > > > >>>>> getting > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more " Late- > > > >>>> breaking news > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > is about > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > >>>>> political > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > organization > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than the > > > >>>> other. I am > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > professional > > > >>>> organization > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > thought > > > >>>> I would > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Carol > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > try. " ~ > > > >>>> Dolly > > > >>>>> Parton > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Good points, Diane. I would like to build on that. America was built on the opposite of that meism you refer to. That's a cool word. However, " self-interest " carries a totally different meaning. Self interest is what made this nation great, not selfishness, they are not the same. No one starts a business and operates it profitably, for instance, without looking out for their OWN self interest first. No one works for nothing, they have to look out for number one, then when they have extra, they are free to share it at their option and to whom they want to. Americans, even " poor " Americans are consistently the most giving people on earth, because of our moral foundation. Even non-profits spend someone's money and someone had to earn it first, while looking out for their own healthy self-interests. I'm all for self-sacrifice and giving, as long as it's voluntary. Corruption destroys nations with a lack of moral clarity. I doubt we disagree, just thought I would chime in on the meaning of words. Dave Quote Worthy: " Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. " -- Madison From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of Diane Preves M.S., R.D. Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:41 PM To: rd-usa Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions Good points everybody! Let us not forget the perhaps root problems (which so many of the well-stated comments on the issues have actually referred to)--corruption and " meism " . While the current administration has successfully positioned itself as fighting against self-interests and " meism " , I'm not convinced. My thought is if the " sides " keep arguing the ideas and issues and solutions without at least acknowledging the root issues such as corruption and self-interest (truly) we will only wind up with more band-aids. Respectfully appreciating this thread . . . Diane Preves, M.S., R.D. N.E.W. LIFE (Nutrition, Exercise, Wellness for LIFE) www.newlifeforhealth.com e-mail: newlife4health@...<mailto:newlife4health%40aol.com>, newlife@...<mailto:newlife%40newlifeforhealth.com> http://www.linkedin.com/in/newlifedianepreves http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Preves/1357243185 http://twitter.com/DianePreves Grrrr > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > ADA, I am > > > >>>> still a > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > difficult to > > > >>>> put > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > However > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion is > > > >>>>> getting > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more " Late- > > > >>>> breaking news > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > is about > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > >>>>> political > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > organization > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than the > > > >>>> other. I am > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > professional > > > >>>> organization > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > thought > > > >>>> I would > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Carol > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > try. " ~ > > > >>>> Dolly > > > >>>>> Parton > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 , Thank you for sharing a small sampling of the facts regarding the founding of our nation. The problem is the vast majority of people are no longer in touch with these facts, will never hear them perhaps in their entire lives, and so much of the public listens to and participates in debates which are removed from this basis. I, for one, intend to continue to educate my children both from this basis and to also encourage them to be as fully aware as possible of the direction and " sides " of the arguments in this country in which they now find themselves living because it is going to be their task as well as ours to contribute where we can to the direction of the country. Diane Grrrr > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > > ADA, I am > > > > >>>> still a > > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > > difficult to > > > > >>>> put > > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > > However > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion > is > > > > >>>>> getting > > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more > " Late- > > > > >>>> breaking news > > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > > is about > > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > > >>>>> political > > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > > organization > > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than > the > > > > >>>> other. I am > > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > > professional > > > > >>>> organization > > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > > thought > > > > >>>> I would > > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Carol > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > > try. " ~ > > > > >>>> Dolly > > > > >>>>> Parton > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Yes, --thank you for clarifying, and we do agree. Perhaps that is part of the problem--the " definitions " of the words we use. After all, words give a framework for our ideas. I have seen lawyers, book authors, etc. manipulate words to win people over to their argument not even based in truth or evidence. It's quite clever, frustrating, and rampant. I do appreciate you chiming in on the meaning of my words! Diane Grrrr > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > ADA, I am > > > >>>> still a > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > difficult to > > > >>>> put > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > However > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion is > > > >>>>> getting > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more " Late- > > > >>>> breaking news > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > is about > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > >>>>> political > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > organization > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than the > > > >>>> other. I am > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > professional > > > >>>> organization > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > thought > > > >>>> I would > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Carol > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > try. " ~ > > > >>>> Dolly > > > >>>>> Parton > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Pam, Thank you for your continued patience and good nature re:this thread. It is very easy to throw stones but not so easy to build a system. Let us hope that the combined bill will provide the most care for the most people. There is no perfect anything. I agree with you that I have a responsibility to help those less fortunate (financially) than I am. Is that not what the Judeo-Christian beliefs are based on? Madalyn ________________________________ To: rd-usa Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:38:45 PM Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions , Just so you're aware, for most individuals who do not have a trust fund or other source of income far beyond what most RDs are currently making, it can cost upwards of $10,000 per month (that's right, per month) for some chemotherapeutic agents. Let's say you're lucky and don't get cancer, but you need surgery requiring a two night stay in the hospital. Right now, we're talking over $10,000 for that. Other medications can cost upwards of thousands per month. Remember that Medicare is intended for retirees, so you won't have your current income to help out, rather you'll be relying on savings and perhaps a pension, but one shouldn't rely on a pension, or on employer-sponsored health insurance in retirement, as those benefits are often cut. So, if you have the funds to do so, fine, you can opt out. You do not have to accept Medicare. How would you gladly pay for the VA if not government run? Should we all chip in? As I mentioned earlier, I spent a chunk of last year studying how healthcare is funded for active duty military and retirees. Lacking a centralized method, it would be an incredibly complex undertaking. It's easy to say we should scrap it, but not so easy to come up with a workable alternative. ly, all I've heard from this list is how much current legislation is hated but nothing to say how to work together to improve things. I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I cannot be so self-involved. I will not discuss your theories related to the founding of this nation, rather I rely on accurate historical accounts. Pam Charney pcharney@... > Easy questions to answer: Yes, I would opt out of Medicare if I had > a choice. I would pay for my own insurance. If I wasn't being forced > to pay for others' healthcare, along with their unemployment for > months on end and on and on, I could easily afford to pay for my > own. Get the government out of the private sector and costs will > come down. As for the military, I would love to have them getting > healthcare in the private sector, instead of government run VA. I > would gladly continue to pay for their healthcare. In the private > sector they would get much better care than they do now. Who would > choose Medicare over VA if they had a choice! Those two types of > government run healthcare show how poorly the government runs > anything. Simple answers. > > This is NOT a democracy! America is a constitutional republic (very > different) of self-governance, under the rule of law (as opposed to > the rule of man). The rule of law that was expected to remain the > rule when the nation was founded, by the way, was that found in the > pages of the Bible. Judeo-Christian principles. > > Quoteworthy: " The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were > religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined > liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions > and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially > the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular > individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in > their image. Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for > people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that > happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold > Judeo-Christian values?... If America abandons its Judeo-Christian > values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian > Bibles, its Founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, > including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the > Jews of secular Europe. " -Dennis Prager > > Re: Grrrr > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'd like to clarify a couple statements. ADA is not > > " pushing " a > > > > >>> particular platform. What our professional organization > > would like > > > > >>> is > > > > >>> for the RD to be included in whatever the reform package > > looks like. > > > > >>> I'm sure we'd all like to be recognized as competent health > > care > > > > >>> providers regardless of who is paying. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As for who is paying, I'd venture to guess, it will be the > > same as > > > > >>> previously; all of us. At this point there is some talk > about > > > > >>> raising > > > > >>> taxes, but only for the very highest income levels, and > > (although I > > > > >>> am > > > > >>> not entirely sure on this one), some of the business taxes > > for large > > > > >>> employers. Remember that we should believe half of what we > > see and > > > > >>> none of what we " hear " , particularly when it comes to > > emotional > > > > >>> issues > > > > >>> such as this one. Please try to vet what you " hear "  > through a > > > > >>> reliable > > > > >>> source. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Here is my own personal wish for health reform; that no one > > in the > > > > >>> United States has to go to bed worrying about how to pay for > > > > >>> medication, a Dr's visit, or their next RD appointment. That > > we all > > > > >>> have access to healthcare that is of the highest quality, > > regardless > > > > >>> of our financial and employment situation. And finally, that > > no one > > > > >>> faces financial ruin simply because they had the misfortune > > to lose > > > > >>> their job and/or get sick. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> pam > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Pam Charney, PhD, RD > > > > >>> Affiliate Associate Professor > > > > >>> Pharmacy > > > > >>> > > > > >>> MS Student > > > > >>> Clinical Informatics and Patient Centered Technology > > > > >>> School of Nursing > > > > >>> > > > > >>> University of Washington > > > > >>> Seattle, WA > > > > >>> pcharney@... <pcharney%40mac.com> <pcharney%40mac.com> > > > > > > > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/pamcharney > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Exactly. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Grrrr > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > > ADA, I am > > > > >>>> still a > > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > > difficult to > > > > >>>> put > > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > > However > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion > is > > > > >>>>> getting > > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more > " Late- > > > > >>>> breaking news > > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > > is about > > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > > >>>>> political > > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > > organization > > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than > the > > > > >>>> other. I am > > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > > professional > > > > >>>> organization > > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > > thought > > > > >>>> I would > > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Carol > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > > try. " ~ > > > > >>>> Dolly > > > > >>>>> Parton > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. Have a lovely day, pam Pam Charney pcharney@... > I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic > expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. > We pay > enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you > call this > " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can > afford to > pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our > hands > full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same > boat as > us. > Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. > > In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > pcharney@... writes: > > I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those > in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit > more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in > taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I > cannot be so self-involved. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 One of the things the debate seems to boil down to is whether individuals should be forced by government (or anyone else) to make the moral choice to reach out and help those less fortunate. Don't get me wrong--I believe it is not only necessary, but our obligation as human beings. However, I believe it is left (by God) to be an individual choice, therefore I would not want to put any government in the position of (or above) God. In other words, I don't think government should be in the place of enforcing our moral decisions. Furthermore, why is this often the argument during the healthcare debate, but government is unwilling to step in and enforce making moral decisions about pornography and the like? That is an issue that is the indirect or direct cause of who-know-how-many divorces and we all recognize the significant contribution of the broken family and single mom households on the economic stress of our society. But I digress. An interesting question--can government ever be moral or enforce morality? I believe that is the place of religion--the " moral law " comes from God and is somewhat codified through religion, not government. Again, respecting all who have contributed to this conversation! Diane Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. > > Have a lovely day, > pam > > Pam Charney > pcharney@... > > > > > >> I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic >> expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. >> We pay >> enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you >> call this >> " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can >> afford to >> pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our >> hands >> full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same >> boat as >> us. >> Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. >> >> In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >> pcharney@... writes: >> >> I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those >> in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit >> more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in >> taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I >> cannot be so self-involved. >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Paying extra taxes, whether one can afford it or not, does not guarantee access to health care for all, any more than paying extra taxes has guaranteed access and good education for all. Jobs, jobs, jobs at fair wages is what would wipe out the poverty pockets in our country that deprive citizens of good health care and good education. RDs have been out there attempting to raise quality of life and prevent illness forever. We all invested in our education, continued to pour personal resources into being the best we can and many have been among the best trained, educated volunteers around. I don't think this is about a moral obligation to give away the resources of the rest of our families, spouses whoever that support our efforts to go out and save the world. BUT I digress, if I thought that paying more taxes would solve anything or gurantee good health care I would agree. Sadly, I do not. Raphaela Rozanski, MS, RD, LDN > > > >> I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic > >> expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. > >> We pay > >> enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you > >> call this > >> " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can > >> afford to > >> pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our > >> hands > >> full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same > >> boat as > >> us. > >> Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. > >> > >> In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > >> pcharney@... writes: > >> > >> I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those > >> in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit > >> more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in > >> taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I > >> cannot be so self-involved. > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Pam Charney wrote: > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. I too believe that we should reach out to those less fortunate, and I have a feeling than does also. However, I think the reaching out should be done on an individual basis, not funneled through the bureacracy, pork, inefficiency, wastefulness, and sometimes outright corruption of the government. I have not been at all impressed with most of the government programs I have encountered so far and have no reason to believe that my hard-earned tax dollars will be wisely and efficiently used to reach out to those less fortunate. I have started a lunch program in our tiny rural area; am planning teen nights for kids who have no place to go; am arranging for blood pressure checks and health screenings free or no cost by volunteers from our health dept.; and a farmers market that will bring in added income plus tax dollars in our very poor county. We are doing remarkably well, with minimal funds, no waste, and excellent results, thanks to a group of fine volunteers. I have yet to see a government program do as well. - ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Absolutely, .Without self-interest we would have been undeveloped, rather then the leaders of the FREE world. Self interest brings innovation and moves us forward, rather then backward. Charity is important but I would never help those who don't help themselves. I am all for helping the poor and the unfortunate but I am not for " entitlement programs " for people who prefer to sit at home and collect unemployment and other benefits, when there is no disability involved. I want them to go and have a minimum wage work and I will gladly give them ,thru my taxes, supplemental income so they can make a descent living. Magical cost comes from many thing - partially from the pharma industry but also from:A. People don't want to put a price-tag on their health therefore most of us are willing to pay anything to become healthier, especially in emergencies, or major Sx. B. Medical school cost a lot. If I went to medical school, studied for 7 years and still have a debt of 100s of 1000s of dollars - and I have the knowledge to heal and revive people, and you, as my client/pt, want to be able to call me at any given time, including holidays, I expect to be compensated accordingly. Wouldn't you? Unless you would prefer a bad doctor who's diagnostic eye is not great, (I hope we can agree that not all doctors are " born " equal " out of medical school) he is often writing the wrong Rx for the wrong Dx and he is never available - then I would expect too - to pay accordingly - meaning much less. You could say " they chose to be a doctors they should know what it involves " . True - but there is a limit for everything and if we are a society who praise with $$$, we expect services for $$ and better services with more $$. And if you look at countries who do not have the same " praise system " - most if not all of them are not offering the same level of whichever service you could ask for, from medicine to pluming. I can tell you this much - A neurosurgeon may be making " tones of money " in our terms, but for the lives s/he saves, for the delicate job s/he operates, for the hours s/he works, away from family, being called in at 1,2,3,4,5 AM on Christmas day or better yet in the middle of the Christmas dinner - he deserves every nickel s/he wants and thinks he/she should earn. Personally - I don't want anybody to call him/her if I collapse in the middle of the night, let me go. but thats me. But I am still willing to pay him/her, if I will ever need his/her services for my daughter. I will sell my house and everything else I own (not much, I can assure you), G-d forbid any of us will ever need their services, but this is where the costs come from. We will not get the same services from doctors if they will be paid by the Gov bc they will be paid much less. Merav Levi, RD, MS, CDNhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/meravlevi To: rd-usa From: drowell@... Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:46:39 -0700 Subject: RE: Grrrr/ Easy Questions Good points, Diane. I would like to build on that. America was built on the opposite of that meism you refer to. That's a cool word. However, " self-interest " carries a totally different meaning. Self interest is what made this nation great, not selfishness, they are not the same. No one starts a business and operates it profitably, for instance, without looking out for their OWN self interest first. No one works for nothing, they have to look out for number one, then when they have extra, they are free to share it at their option and to whom they want to. Americans, even " poor " Americans are consistently the most giving people on earth, because of our moral foundation. Even non-profits spend someone's money and someone had to earn it first, while looking out for their own healthy self-interests. I'm all for self-sacrifice and giving, as long as it's voluntary. Corruption destroys nations with a lack of moral clarity. I doubt we disagree, just thought I would chime in on the meaning of words. Dave Quote Worthy: " Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. " -- Madison From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of Diane Preves M.S., R.D. Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:41 PM To: rd-usa Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions Good points everybody! Let us not forget the perhaps root problems (which so many of the well-stated comments on the issues have actually referred to)--corruption and " meism " . While the current administration has successfully positioned itself as fighting against self-interests and " meism " , I'm not convinced. My thought is if the " sides " keep arguing the ideas and issues and solutions without at least acknowledging the root issues such as corruption and self-interest (truly) we will only wind up with more band-aids. Respectfully appreciating this thread . . . Diane Preves, M.S., R.D. N.E.W. LIFE (Nutrition, Exercise, Wellness for LIFE) www.newlifeforhealth.com e-mail: newlife4health@...<mailto:newlife4health%40aol.com>, newlife@...<mailto:newlife%40newlifeforhealth.com> http://www.linkedin.com/in/newlifedianepreves http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Preves/1357243185 http://twitter.com/DianePreves Grrrr > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Because I value one particular practice group within the > ADA, I am > > > >>>> still a > > > >>>>> member. I tell you what, it is getting more and more > difficult to > > > >>>> put > > > >>>>> things in perspective. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We all have deferring opinions about healthcare reform. > However > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> pressure to support legislation - no matter your opinion is > > > >>>>> getting > > > >>>>> increasingly more difficult to ignore. If I get more " Late- > > > >>>> breaking news > > > >>>>> from the ADA " subject line emails inly to open to see it > is about > > > >>>>> healthcare reform I am going to be pushed over the edge. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am an independent voter, I do not align myself with any > > > >>>>> political > > > >>>>> party. I am so frustrated that our own professional > organization > > > >>>>> continously trends more towards one political party than the > > > >>>> other. I am > > > >>>>> so very close of washing my hands of my very own > professional > > > >>>> organization > > > >>>>> and quite frankly I am finding this rather shocking. Never > thought > > > >>>> I would > > > >>>>> be where I am my feelings about the ADA. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I know, I am just venting. However I am quite frustrated. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Carol > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> (sent via Blackberry) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> " You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to > try. " ~ > > > >>>> Dolly > > > >>>>> Parton > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Love all the opinions because they go beyond the scope of dietetics and health care BUT also our own life experiences. There is some truth in what EVERYONE has written. I am a firm believer in accountability BUT also I think back when I was " younger " . I see the changes in the overuse of expensive health care. I remember when kidneys were even more in short supply and sitting in meetings in determining who would get the next kidney. In those days anyone over 50 did NOT get one and so on.... I think we do need to look at rationing of health care BUT not as thrown into the public debate that we are going to let all old people die (that was ridiculous political posturing) and other untruths. Example my FIL died of Alzheimers BUT was treated many times for UTI, anemia, etc. when his mind was completely gone. I know some would be offended but I know if it was me I would not to waste health care dollars for that. My husband was very upset that my MIL kept getting him treated. He lived an additional 2 years. The big debate just recently came up about mammograms and limiting them to age 50+ unless there is a risk for earlier screening. If you agree or not it is an interesting debate.... Too much is also spent on defensive medicine. There will NOT be enough primary docs to treat everyone if this health care goes through and " gatekeepers " is what the system will need. My husband a Physician retired early because medicine is scary. There is a very large expense in labor just to file insurance claims. My husband was mostly in the ER but did try primary medicine for 5 years - half of his day was paperwork. Medicare for one is full of abuse - only 4% of the submitted bills are even looked at because by law they must be paid within 30 days. When my mother was looking for a wheelchair and walker ordered by the MD and to be paid by Medicare the mark-up was ridiculous. I could go into the open market and pay half of that cost. Many docs are just refusing to accept Medicare and they want to cut the payments now. Plus it doesn't matter if you spend 10 minutes or 30 minutes if it is one problem you have to charge the same. We buy our own health insurance with a very large deductible. When I was getting my cholesterol checked I told the MD to pick one test - get an ultrasound on my carotids or have my blood tested (cost in the end would be the same). Together we chose the ultrasound. Keep up the debate... On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:28 PM, ne Holden < fivestar@...> wrote: > > > Pam Charney wrote: > > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. > > I too believe that we should reach out to those less fortunate, and I > have a feeling than does also. However, I think the reaching out > should be done on an individual basis, not funneled through the > bureacracy, pork, inefficiency, wastefulness, and sometimes outright > corruption of the government. I have not been at all impressed with most > of the government programs I have encountered so far and have no reason > to believe that my hard-earned tax dollars will be wisely and > efficiently used to reach out to those less fortunate. > > I have started a lunch program in our tiny rural area; am planning teen > nights for kids who have no place to go; am arranging for blood pressure > checks and health screenings free or no cost by volunteers from our > health dept.; and a farmers market that will bring in added income plus > tax dollars in our very poor county. > > We are doing remarkably well, with minimal funds, no waste, and > excellent results, thanks to a group of fine volunteers. I have yet to > see a government program do as well. > > - ne > > -- Ortiz, MS, RD Perk Of Being Over The Hill: Your investment in health insurance is finally paying off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 We are all ready supporting those in need - welfare, ssi, medicaid... ________________________________ To: rd-usa Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 6:28:38 PM Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions  One of the things the debate seems to boil down to is whether individuals should be forced by government (or anyone else) to make the moral choice to reach out and help those less fortunate. Don't get me wrong--I believe it is not only necessary, but our obligation as human beings. However, I believe it is left (by God) to be an individual choice, therefore I would not want to put any government in the position of (or above) God. In other words, I don't think government should be in the place of enforcing our moral decisions. Furthermore, why is this often the argument during the healthcare debate, but government is unwilling to step in and enforce making moral decisions about pornography and the like? That is an issue that is the indirect or direct cause of who-know-how- many divorces and we all recognize the significant contribution of the broken family and single mom households on the economic stress of our society. But I digress. An interesting question--can government ever be moral or enforce morality? I believe that is the place of religion--the " moral law " comes from God and is somewhat codified through religion, not government. Again, respecting all who have contributed to this conversation! Diane Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. > > Have a lovely day, > pam > > Pam Charney > pcharneymac (DOT) com > > > > On Jan 4, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Audley3aol (DOT) com wrote: > >> I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic >> expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. >> We pay >> enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you >> call this >> " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can >> afford to >> pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our >> hands >> full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same >> boat as >> us. >> Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. >> >> In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >> pcharneymac (DOT) com writes: >> >> I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those >> in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit >> more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in >> taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I >> cannot be so self-involved. >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 Me, too. Paying more taxes so the government can decide who to give it to is not charitable giving. Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. Have a lovely day, pam Pam Charney pcharney@... > I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic > expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. > We pay > enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you > call this > " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can > afford to > pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our > hands > full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same > boat as > us. > Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. > > In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > pcharney@... writes: > > I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those > in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit > more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in > taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I > cannot be so self-involved. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 Me, too. Paying more taxes so the government can decide who to give it to is not charitable giving. Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. Have a lovely day, pam Pam Charney pcharney@... > I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic > expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. > We pay > enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you > call this > " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can > afford to > pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our > hands > full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same > boat as > us. > Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. > > In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > pcharney@... writes: > > I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those > in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit > more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in > taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I > cannot be so self-involved. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 Me, too. Paying more taxes so the government can decide who to give it to is not charitable giving. Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. Have a lovely day, pam Pam Charney pcharney@... > I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic > expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. > We pay > enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you > call this > " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can > afford to > pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our > hands > full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same > boat as > us. > Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. > > In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > pcharney@... writes: > > I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those > in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit > more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in > taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I > cannot be so self-involved. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 Great points, Diane. Let me interject here, for those interested, the historical background of our system of laws from the very small beginning of our nation. Our republic was fashioned on " self-governance under the rule of law " (as opposed to the rule of man, as in a king). That rule of law in America was designed primarily from Blackstone's Commentary on the Rule of English Laws. The " common law " was often referred to as " the law of nature and nature's God " . It's a very interesting study. www.wallbuilders.com<http://www.wallbuilders.com> is a great place to learn about the true history of the " great experiment " that founded our great nation. Washington, noted that Blackstone's was the " manual of almost every student of law in the United States. " Legal educator Roscoe Pound confirms that Blackstone's formed the basis of all legal studies and bar exams until well into the 20th century. Quote Worthy: " Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. " -- Madison From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of Diane Preves M.S., R.D. Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 4:29 PM To: rd-usa Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions One of the things the debate seems to boil down to is whether individuals should be forced by government (or anyone else) to make the moral choice to reach out and help those less fortunate. Don't get me wrong--I believe it is not only necessary, but our obligation as human beings. However, I believe it is left (by God) to be an individual choice, therefore I would not want to put any government in the position of (or above) God. In other words, I don't think government should be in the place of enforcing our moral decisions. Furthermore, why is this often the argument during the healthcare debate, but government is unwilling to step in and enforce making moral decisions about pornography and the like? That is an issue that is the indirect or direct cause of who-know-how-many divorces and we all recognize the significant contribution of the broken family and single mom households on the economic stress of our society. But I digress. An interesting question--can government ever be moral or enforce morality? I believe that is the place of religion--the " moral law " comes from God and is somewhat codified through religion, not government. Again, respecting all who have contributed to this conversation! Diane Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. > > Have a lovely day, > pam > > Pam Charney > pcharney@...<mailto:pcharney%40mac.com> > > > > On Jan 4, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Audley3@...<mailto:Audley3%40aol.com> wrote: > >> I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic >> expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. >> We pay >> enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you >> call this >> " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can >> afford to >> pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our >> hands >> full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same >> boat as >> us. >> Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. >> >> In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >> pcharney@...<mailto:pcharney%40mac.com> writes: >> >> I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those >> in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit >> more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in >> taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I >> cannot be so self-involved. >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 ne, how did you do all that without the governments help?! ;O) Quote Worthy: " [G]overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. " -- Paine From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of ne Holden Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:29 PM To: rd-usa Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions Pam Charney wrote: > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. I too believe that we should reach out to those less fortunate, and I have a feeling than does also. However, I think the reaching out should be done on an individual basis, not funneled through the bureacracy, pork, inefficiency, wastefulness, and sometimes outright corruption of the government. I have not been at all impressed with most of the government programs I have encountered so far and have no reason to believe that my hard-earned tax dollars will be wisely and efficiently used to reach out to those less fortunate. I have started a lunch program in our tiny rural area; am planning teen nights for kids who have no place to go; am arranging for blood pressure checks and health screenings free or no cost by volunteers from our health dept.; and a farmers market that will bring in added income plus tax dollars in our very poor county. We are doing remarkably well, with minimal funds, no waste, and excellent results, thanks to a group of fine volunteers. I have yet to see a government program do as well. - ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 ne, how did you do all that without the governments help?! ;O) Quote Worthy: " [G]overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. " -- Paine From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of ne Holden Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:29 PM To: rd-usa Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions Pam Charney wrote: > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. I too believe that we should reach out to those less fortunate, and I have a feeling than does also. However, I think the reaching out should be done on an individual basis, not funneled through the bureacracy, pork, inefficiency, wastefulness, and sometimes outright corruption of the government. I have not been at all impressed with most of the government programs I have encountered so far and have no reason to believe that my hard-earned tax dollars will be wisely and efficiently used to reach out to those less fortunate. I have started a lunch program in our tiny rural area; am planning teen nights for kids who have no place to go; am arranging for blood pressure checks and health screenings free or no cost by volunteers from our health dept.; and a farmers market that will bring in added income plus tax dollars in our very poor county. We are doing remarkably well, with minimal funds, no waste, and excellent results, thanks to a group of fine volunteers. I have yet to see a government program do as well. - ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 ne, how did you do all that without the governments help?! ;O) Quote Worthy: " [G]overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. " -- Paine From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of ne Holden Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:29 PM To: rd-usa Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions Pam Charney wrote: > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. I too believe that we should reach out to those less fortunate, and I have a feeling than does also. However, I think the reaching out should be done on an individual basis, not funneled through the bureacracy, pork, inefficiency, wastefulness, and sometimes outright corruption of the government. I have not been at all impressed with most of the government programs I have encountered so far and have no reason to believe that my hard-earned tax dollars will be wisely and efficiently used to reach out to those less fortunate. I have started a lunch program in our tiny rural area; am planning teen nights for kids who have no place to go; am arranging for blood pressure checks and health screenings free or no cost by volunteers from our health dept.; and a farmers market that will bring in added income plus tax dollars in our very poor county. We are doing remarkably well, with minimal funds, no waste, and excellent results, thanks to a group of fine volunteers. I have yet to see a government program do as well. - ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 Not to mention those who DON’T need, but just WANT! From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of Madalyn Friedberg Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:02 AM To: rd-usa Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions We are all ready supporting those in need - welfare, ssi, medicaid... ________________________________ From: " Diane Preves M.S., R.D. " <newlife4health@...<mailto:newlife4health%40aol.com>> To: rd-usa <mailto:rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com> Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 6:28:38 PM Subject: Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions One of the things the debate seems to boil down to is whether individuals should be forced by government (or anyone else) to make the moral choice to reach out and help those less fortunate. Don't get me wrong--I believe it is not only necessary, but our obligation as human beings. However, I believe it is left (by God) to be an individual choice, therefore I would not want to put any government in the position of (or above) God. In other words, I don't think government should be in the place of enforcing our moral decisions. Furthermore, why is this often the argument during the healthcare debate, but government is unwilling to step in and enforce making moral decisions about pornography and the like? That is an issue that is the indirect or direct cause of who-know-how- many divorces and we all recognize the significant contribution of the broken family and single mom households on the economic stress of our society. But I digress. An interesting question--can government ever be moral or enforce morality? I believe that is the place of religion--the " moral law " comes from God and is somewhat codified through religion, not government. Again, respecting all who have contributed to this conversation! Diane Re: Grrrr/ Easy Questions > No, , I am far from independently wealthy. I just happen to take > to heart those principles that say we should reach out to those less > fortunate. My hands are also full taking care of my own, but I also am > willing to sacrifice a bit more to ensure those who are in need are > provided with adequate health care. That's the moral thing to do. > > Have a lovely day, > pam > > Pam Charney > pcharneymac (DOT) com > > > > On Jan 4, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Audley3aol (DOT) com wrote: > >> I work 2 jobs, and my husband works a 60 hr work week, to pay basic >> expenses and to give our 3 young children a decent quality of life. >> We pay >> enough in taxes already and would prefer NOT to pay more. Maybe you >> call this >> " self-involved " , and maybe you make so much money that you can >> afford to >> pay more in taxes to take care of others, but we don't. We have our >> hands >> full taking care of our own. And there are many others in the same >> boat as >> us. >> Audley, M.S., R.D., L.D. >> >> In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:48:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >> pcharneymac (DOT) com writes: >> >> I guess we have vastly different opinions regarding caring for those >> in our society who cannot do so on their own. I'd gladly pay a bit >> more in taxes (there, I've said it. I'll voluntarily pay more in >> taxes) if that will ensure access to adequate health care for all. I >> cannot be so self-involved. >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.