Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill? 

By: Beldin in POPE | Recommend this post (3)
Wed, 14 Mar 12 1:27 AM | 45 view(s)
Boardmark this board | (The) Pope's for real stock market report 		Msg. 53497 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 53475 by DigSpace)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

That's all right, Dig ... it was already simple.

The fact that a private university receives tuition payments from students who fund those payments with government-sponsored loans is irrelevant to your notion of "government funding." With regard to these loans, the government's involvement is in the contract between the student and the lender ... the government is helping to fund the student, and after that, the money is fungible. In other words, the private university doesn't owe fealty to the government simply because the student paid his tuition with proceeds from a government-guaranteed loan. As for any research grants the government may give to a private university, the logical presumption is that the government is granting this money for the potential value of the research, itself ... not to lamely suggest that, since the government has given the private university a few bucks for research purposes (and I agree - it doesn't matter if it is a little or a lot), the government now has the right to control all aspects of how a private university is operated. The idea of "usurpation by gift" is simply a leftist con game.

Georgetown University is a private institution and the health insurance it chooses to subsidize is a private contract involving the university, the insurance company, and the university's employees and any students who are able to participate. If the negotiated terms of this contract are not acceptable to any of the parties who would otherwise participate, they are free to go elsewhere and negotiate more acceptable terms with other willing parties, not cajole like-minded socialists in the government to manufacture an excuse to unconstitutionally use government power to arrogate the rights and assets of some citizens, against their will, for the benefit of their political supporters. That is the blatant disregard for the Constitution and crass cronyism that is currently destroying this country from within.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill?
By: DigSpace in POPE
Wed, 14 Mar 12 12:00 AM 		Msg. 53475 of 65535

I clearly need to simplify.

Publicly funded institutions should not (IMO) and the opinion of the majority (IMO) be allowed to tailor insurance according to religious doctrine.

And yes, everybody wants to cherry pick the portion of the taxes that they pay. Wouldn't that be fun. We've sen how the whole 'won't pay the mil portion of my taxes' folks have done.

I will concede that this is a pretty precarious place for me, while long comfortable with fed social engineering, as I age I do believe it too frequently exceeds its constructive value.

I find the 'how much' argument to be lame. If it is a right of a institution receiving public funds then it should not matter if it is $9 a month or $9 billion a month. The argument is a structural one, trying to negate it by asserting that it is a small cost dodges the question (for both sides).

this notion that the first amendment allows one to opt-in and opt-out of public participation is curious.

I didn't say anybody has a right to birth control. I said that I believe it falls within federal providence to disallow religiously-based medical benefits cherry-picking by publicly funded institutions. I would say the same thing if they had a religiously-inspired prohibition for cancer care.

They receive $24m in the form of tuition from federal student loans. Their competitive federal research funding is considerable of which they likely bank around 40% as overhead.

You read this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

to specifically read this:

"federally funded institutions can tailor medical care offered based on religious criteria"

We differ on what we read into that.

On "access", I am using insurance interchangeably with access, yes a person can pay for their own heart surgery, but IMO for your argument to have merit, they have to be able to e.g. specifically exclude diabetes. Otherwise you have federally funded institutions cherry picking medical benefits for religious purposes, and I am against that.


« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next