Forcing, no. But I don't think the city should have stopped using them. If they were the ONLY service the city was using, or they are only allowed to use one, by all means, sever ties. But if toy can do business with all of the adoption service organizations, where your disagreement with one is counterbalanced by another, why bother closing the avenue? In the end it's the most vulnerable... Orphaned children... Who are hurt.

There is a perfectly legal way to do this: donate money or a building to the school, and the school miraculously finds a way to admit your kids. It's been going on for literally ever, and no one has every been prosecuted for it. Is it ethical? Hell no. But it's the "accepted" way of doing business. If they had just handed the college the same amount of money they paid out to cheat, it never would have raised an eyebrow.

The more I think about this, the more I am leaning toward the church being right. Not because I believe it's cool they discriminate.... But because shutting down any avenue towards getting kids adopted is a generally bad idea. I am sure the city has a plethora of places to go that will place kids in homes with same sex couples, so they aren't limiting themselves there. But turning off one spigot, doesn't necessarily mean more flow elsewhere in the system. Adsorption is a real problem and kids need homes the city should be doing business with everyone working toward that goal.

Hmmm. I will have to think about this more.

As a Catholic, I wouldn't want the state too force anyone to violate their religious beliefs. Since the city doesn't share those beliefs, it is taking its business elsewhere. The charity is expecting the city to do exactly what it's railing against.... Forcing them to do business with an organization they disagree with and that's just wrong. The charity isn't being discriminated against, and it's free to operate with people that do share its philosophy.

I am not exactly sure why they are upset.

#27. It depends on the agency. In law enforcement agencies, managers are GS14 and up. Oh, as ALWAYS been illegal for them to unionize.

Open Medicare for all that want to pay into it, allow people that don't want to buy into it, to not have to and purchase health insurance on their own. Allow the system to have some hospitals designed around Medicare patients, but also allow some hospitals to be completely private.

It would allow employers at the local level to continue to offer private health care to their employees as a benefit through contracting with insurance companies and their in network hospitals/doctors Or those who prefer to pay on their own for whatever reason perceived better care, shorter wait times, etc.... To have the avenue of their choosing.

It works well in Israel as a model, though it's hard to say if it would translate to such a large and non homogenous country like the US.

I have advocated repeatedly for changes to the system to increase equality of access. That I also recognize the system as it stands has good points is in no way a denial of its bad points. I don't understand why you and snoofy are both ignoring this glaring fact

Number one, I don't like government to be able to hide what it's doing and pass little taxes that no one really pays attention to. But if Your pay check decreases by 1 dollar suddenly, You are going to pay attention to that. At least I would.

But more importantly, all income should be treated the same. I don't care if it's a dividend payment or you earned it turning a wrench. Income is income and should be treated as such.

It you have no taxable income, you most likely are barely affording enough to eat and don't need uncle sugar reaching in your pocket for his share of the crumbs you have.

No. I don't agree. At all

#179 how is that what you got out of that?

You are confusing things, which is unsurprising.

Just because a rural hospital closes doesn't mean there are less health care dollars spent. The people that hospital serviced now have to travel farther.

Come on. This is silly.

Jesus you really don't read. At no point have i said it disarm doesn't have flaws. I said our flaws are DIFFERENT FROM OTHER SYSTEMS FLAWS. And then pointed out how changing may have unintended consequences. Accurately pointing out where that is likely to come. And even advocated for changes despite knowing the flaws.

The sad thing is we likely agree on,75% or more but you are having a reactionary argument for arguments sake and nothing else.

A vat tax is a horrible, horrible idea.

I prefer the country does away with every other tax. No gasoline, no sales, no road and use.... Nothing but income. Treat every dollar earned no matter how the sane way and tax at the same rate. Have a tiered tax rate that tops out at 60% for income over 1 million a year.

Set the tax rate to pay for our obligations. And if they have to raise taxes for something, everyone will see their paycheck go down immediately. It's fair, and it is easy to track what the hell Washington is spending. Hidden taxes like cigarette, gasoline, and road and use taxes Are easy to manipulate because the pennies per transaction they generate don't raise enough eyebrows.

165. To be clear, if my employer paid me everything they had been paying in a health plan, and then I lost it in taxes.... Even if I had to pay as little more to ensure everyone in the country had medical care, I would be totally fine with that. I hate the fact that medical care is the number one reason to declare bankruptcy. No one chooses to get sick. We should have to pay for our choices, like smoking, not exercising, and being obese, but those aren't duct indicators of getting sick all the time. Many people get lung cancer without every touching a cigarette or being around asbestos. They made boo choices resulting in getting sick. You can't expect them to just "suck it up" as either paY tens of thousands of dollars or die.

#160 you're insane. The U.S. Pioneered transplant research, heart and brain surgery, and cancer treatments... Also robotics surgery, prosthesis, drug manufacturing... The list is endless.

Could it? Sure? You the degree it is now? You have no factual basis to believe it.

You really enjoy denying facts, don't you?

#154. Yep. You are SWAGging pretty hard. Especially when you say they aren't the same system. Of course they are interdependent. No money, no research. Our system of money flow has resulted In amazing research. Other systems not so much.

Keep denying it. It will never make sense to do it, but I like it when you hold your breath and stamp your feet. It's funny.

#152. And yes. It did. Three years ago, I tore my rotator cuff, labrum, and biceps tendon. I am not in the health care industry, but I am good friends with many that are. I live in Houston, the largest medical center in the world. I was able to find the best ranked shoulder orthopedic surgeon in the country who happens to be here. It was fully covered, I paid 175 bucks out of pocket, ave another 200 for rehab copays. My shoulder is 100% pre injury

You really can't read can you. The system as it exists right with the money provided by the people through insurance companies now produces the best innovations in the world. The countries that have systems you are talking about wth the people providing money through the government, do not, but have better equality of access.

Can you ever understand this? These are non debatable facts. You can infer that it will be better for us research wise if we change. But you are SWAGging pretty hard.

Again. Point to evidence. Does any country in the world produce as many innovations as we do? Nope. So changing the system to be closer to those countries with less innovation logically means less innovation from is now.

I hope I'm wrong and we can do better, but judging by what the rest of the world is doing, it will suffer.

Because I'm smarter than you. Obviously. You don't know that. You have no evidence to make that claim. I can point to the system as it exists and say that our faults in bad equality of access but our strength is in research and innovation, while socialized medicine have great equality of access but are lower on the research side.

Those are facts. Your WANT it to be true, and hell, I'm willing to try it, because I hate that the number one cause of bankruptcy in this nation is getting sick.....That shouldn't be true.... But there is no evidence to support your assertion. It MAY be true, but it's a gamble

Very easy. We make the innovations for them. That cheapens things considerably. Not unlike countries not having to pay for their own military, because we take care of it. It's easy when you don't have to spend the money

And again, Medicare in its current iteration is capped by many doctors and hospitals due to its crap reimbursement rates that don't let therm survive. So making everyone live on that, it's a gamble. One that could have a huge detrimental effect on research.

My point is the system as it is produces good results. Medicare pays crap reimbursement rates fur services. So unless there is a change in that, the system will not continue as well as it is.

Sure, you cab argue that the 3% profit insurance companies and canceling redundant administrative functions with only one provider, Medicare, over the hundreds we have now. However, the government does not have the best track record of reducing bureaucracy. So your would be making a ton of assumptions

One point I should clarify. I mean a straight change to medicare for all results in a reduction of funds available for our system. So they world have to increase dramatically the regulations on how much medicare pays out for services