Well, Id argue your skepticism is probably warranted. But then I also tend to think that people would be more charitable if their taxation levels weren't so high in the higher brackets as well. Its become a dogma that charity is now handled via government, in the form of our increased taxes to support furthered entitlement. Now, whether that dogma is completely accurate is debateable, and obviously there's still a gap between welfare and public need, since there are still private charities. But I tend to think in the absence of public sector charity, private charity would rise. But then again, we've become institutionalized into public charity, there may be no coming back from that now.

stebo0728 wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:That's mostly due to the projected rise in the cost of medicine, and not to some flaw in Medicare itself.

I disagree. Cost of medicine may indeed play into it, but we're quickly approaching a 1:1 ratio for payer:payee. That is not sustainable. Baby boomers have alot to do with that, but then, any sound plan should be able to sustain the fluctuations in population

Any hard numbers on the 1:1 ratio thing?

AZhitman wrote:
What if my faith opposes PAYING for it?* Why must you force your love of infanticide on me? Pay for it yourself.

Your faith is not germane

We have separation of church and state here and your faith should not interfere with our government policies.

telcoman wrote: Your faith is not germane

We have separation of church and state here and your faith should not interfere with our government policies.

I think Greg has a fair question there. Its one thing to not allow faith to influence prohibitive law. Its another thing to require someone to monetarily support something that they are morally uncomfortable with.

Now, you could form an argument that says: "YOUR taxes don't pay for it, YOUR taxes pay for roads and bridges, and national parks, and all the warm and fuzzy things" but thats a hard sell, because the theory is, all programs in public domain spread equally across the entire taxed population. In other words, everyone who pays, pays some minuscule amount for each program in existence.

But then you could also ask, why does medicare and medicaid fund blood transfusions and organ transplants? Some portion of JW's taxation MUST pay for this right, and since its morally prohibitive to them, why is that acceptable?

Women's reproductive health is an odd one for me. I had PCOS which required that I take Yaz for. If I'm suffering from a condition that can be helped by birth control pills, shouldn't that be an option for me?

Plus, I think birth control should be the other way around; men should be the ones taking it. Which is safer: shooting blanks or shooting rounds at a bulletproof vest?

Marenta wrote:Women's reproductive health is an odd one for me. I had PCOS which required that I take Yaz for. If I'm suffering from a condition that can be helped by birth control pills, shouldn't that be an option for me?

Plus, I think birth control should be the other way around; men should be the ones taking it. Which is safer: shooting blanks or shooting rounds at a bulletproof vest?

Well, I think there's a substantial difference between birth control pills, and a life terminating procedure. Though devout catholics don't believe in ANY birth control, still I think that's a fair distinction to make. And Im not arguing against abortion by saying that.

What gets me is the fact that as a technicality, a pregnancy starts 2 weeks prior to conception. So, are all women everywhere who are taking birth control killing off unborn babies?

I get where they're coming from, I do. But, if you're pro-life at the cost of the mother's life, there's something wrong with that. I don't generally talk about pro-life and pro-choice, mainly because I've never been faced with having to make that decision. I have my 2 with another on the way and all of them were wanted, so, no clue.

I would have to say that if you pay into the tax system you do have to pay for things that you don't necessarily agree with. Although, paying into that tax system does give you a certain amount of freedom, at least in my mind, of being able to voice your oppinion with authority and voting. But, I'm out there sometimes. :P