Why do I have to give a fact? It is my opinion, nothing more nothing less. It's worth just as much as your opinion that they should be considered non-profit.jmog;1077286 wrote:Oh I am wrong plenty of times, just not here.
You have yet to still give a fact as to why they should NOT be non-profit.
Indeed. I admit it's a burden sometimes, but fortunately when it comes to The Fish, with greatness comes humility....along with a high degree of charm and sex appeal, but that's for a different thread.sleeper;1077271 wrote:I'm amazed then. You must be a human prodigy.
Which is probably why I don't issue idiotic statements like "Obama will lose the general election," or "Churches are corporations who parade as religious institutions to increase their wealth."sleeper;1077271 wrote:It is literally IMPOSSIBLE for your brain to comprehend and analyze every single statement and every possibility before making a statement. Even saying "Obama will lose the general election' has many different scenarios that could make that untrue/ different. That is generalizing, you are taking the most likely scenario and painting it is fact/opinion.
The same as the last time you claimed to have ruined me...amusing, with a dash of pity.sleeper;1077271 wrote:You've been ruined, how does it feel?
1. "Uncle Sam's money?" Really?Bigdogg;1077288 wrote:Catholic Health Partners is one of the largest health care systems in Ohio and Kentucky. It is safe to say that they would not survive without Medicaid and Medicare. You collect uncle Sams money, you dance to their song.
http://www.health-partners.org/Reports/Recent Fiscal Year Reports/AFile_001_Audited_Financial_Statements.pdf
I guess you were not good at any class at OSU that involved logic, reasoning, and debate.sleeper;1077289 wrote:Why do I have to give a fact? It is my opinion, nothing more nothing less. It's worth just as much as your opinion that they should be considered non-profit.
Churches are a business. They deserve to be taxed like one.
So, can we apply your logic and reasoning to other laws in existence? For example, since abortion is legal, your opinion that it should not be is invalid because the law(facts) are on my side? LOLjmog;1077321 wrote:I guess you were not good at any class at OSU that involved logic, reasoning, and debate.
A factless based opinion typically shows biasedness and not sound logical reasoning behind an opinion.
I have already given one fact. The law states that religious organizations can apply for non-profit status just like a lot of other organizations. That is a fact.
If you truly believe churches are a business please share some of the profit margins or P/E ratios of local churches please, I would love to hear it.
Sorry, like most other topics you are way out of your league on this one. If they did not have to have to take Medicare and Medicare, they would not. You are having a rough day. First Sleeper beats up on you now you claim to know the Mercy hospital system. Stick with something you know like Ballet.:laugh:fish82;1077315 wrote:1. "Uncle Sam's money?" Really?
B. The idea that "It's safe to say they wouldn't survive without Medicare/Medicaid" is a fairly grandiose supposition on your part. Lots of companies restructure and run on a good bit less than $2.5 billion/year.
The Catholic health organizations could easily band together and tell Bam to go pound salt, and find another place to treat the patients. The line of medical providers who would just jump at the chance to treat those profitable Medicare/Medicare patients is probably out the door.
My day is fine, thanks.Bigdogg;1077330 wrote:Sorry, like most other topics you are way out of your league on this one. If they did not have to have to take Medicare and Medicare, they would not. You are having a rough day. First Sleeper beats up on you now you claim to know the Mercy hospital system. Stick with something you know like Ballet.:laugh:
There is a long list of hospitals that would love Catholic Health to tell Bam to stick it!
Ok, then why don't they quit fucking whining and do just that?fish82;1077315 wrote:1. "Uncle Sam's money?" Really?
B. The idea that "It's safe to say they wouldn't survive without Medicare/Medicaid" is a fairly grandiose supposition on your part. Lots of companies restructure and run on a good bit less than $2.5 billion/year.
The Catholic health organizations could easily band together and tell Bam to go pound salt, and find another place to treat the patients. The line of medical providers who would just jump at the chance to treat those profitable Medicare/Medicare patients is probably out the door.
He is a bad person and doctor then.Con_Alma;1077097 wrote:A friend of mine is an OBGYN and he is Catholic. He has a private practice and he will not prescribe any birth control to his patients.
sleeper is an asshole but he's right. Religious organizations should not be classified as non-profits.jmog;1077241 wrote:Give any facts as to why they "should not be tax exempt", not your opinion.
I will give one fact, the law, end of discussion. The law states that any religious institution is exempt from taxes on donations just like all non-profit orgs.
Your only reason is that you believe them to be profit bearing corporations, which they are not.
I have actually sat on a financial board of a local church, and while there maybe some out there that are different, the finances are strictly watched to make sure no "profits" are made, that everything is spent for operations or improvements of the church.
(from sleeper's first post on this thread.) It is you who threw down the intellectual gauntlet...yet you've posted twice at least...Religion corrupts the intellectual integrity of people
[INDENT]When the only content you add to a discussion is pointing out that me, a human, is generalizing, you might as well not even post at all. That's what humans do, they generalize, that is how the world works. Welcome to reality. [/INDENT]
Beats me...ask them. The fact remains that Medicaid payments don't even cover the cost of providing the service. I'll go out on a limb and theorize that those Eeeeeviiiil Religious Freaks are practicing that "charity" thingy that seems to be a cornerstone of their faith.I Wear Pants;1077368 wrote:Ok, then why don't they quit ****ing whining and do just that?
Why not?I Wear Pants;1077379 wrote:sleeper is an **** but he's right. Religious organizations should not be classified as non-profits.
On what basis. My little league baseball association is a non profit. Please....you have to have a reason other than you don't like them.Religious organizations should not be classified as non-profits.
Because they are a business. Please post what basis Exxon shouldn't be non-profit. Thank you.HitsRus;1077399 wrote:On what basis. My little league baseball association is a non profit. Please....you have to have a reason other than you don't like them.
Can you give a valid reason?I Wear Pants;1077379 wrote:sleeper is an **** but he's right. Religious organizations should not be classified as non-profits.
Or they're just well educated on Natural Family Planning. Which is more effective than nearly all forms of birth control. You just can't be a tard to use it so most people on here would be SOL.Devils Advocate;1077122 wrote:And the institution is free to say no to federal funding.
The Gubmint is not forcing or mandating that anyone use birth control. only that it is available.
The Catholic Church should have no fear of this issue. If their followers do not wish to use birth conrol, no one is forcing themto submit to the dogma.
I know several Catholic families that have 2 or fewer children. Do you think that they do not use birth control? or are they just really good at spray and pray?
Honestly anything that isn't specifically a charitable organization shouldn't be non-profit.jmog;1077404 wrote:Can you give a valid reason?
While at the same time practicing bigotry and hate which is another cornerstone apparently.fish82;1077390 wrote:Beats me...ask them. The fact remains that Medicaid payments don't even cover the cost of providing the service. I'll go out on a limb and theorize that those Eeeeeviiiil Religious Freaks are practicing that "charity" thingy that seems to be a cornerstone of their faith.
Another idea would be to just take it through the courts, as the rule is a pretty clear cut violation of the First Amendment. Maybe that's what they're "fucking whining" about.
If you think that the rythm method is more effective than a rubber or hormonal treatment to stop ovulation, I think you should look in the ol mirror and redefine your definition of tard.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1077411 wrote:Or they're just well educated on Natural Family Planning. Which is more effective than nearly all forms of birth control. You just can't be a tard to use it so most people on here would be SOL.
| Method of Birth Control | How Many Couples Using This Method Will Get Pregnant in a Year? | How Well Does This Method Work in Preventing Pregnancy? | Can This Method Also Protect Against STDs? |
| Consistent Abstinence | None | Completely effective | Yes |
| Birth Control Patch ("The Patch") | 8 out of 100 | Effective | No |
| Birth Control Pill ("The Pill") | 8 out of 100 | Effective | No |
| Birth Control Ring ("The Ring") | 8 out of 100 | Effective | No |
| Female Condom | 21 out of 100 | Less effective | Yes |
| Male Condom | 15 out of 100 | Moderately effective | Yes |
| Birth Control Shot | 3 out of 100 | Effective | No |
| Diaphragm | 16 out of 100 | Moderately effective | No |
| Emergency Contraception | 1 to 2 out of 100 | Very effective | No |
| IUD | Fewer than 1 out of 100 | Very effective | No |
| Fertility Awareness | 25 out of 100 | Less effective | No |
| Spermicide | 29 out of 100 | Less effective | No |
| Withdrawal ("Pulling Out") | 27 out of 100 | Less effective | No |
| Not Using Any Birth Control | 85 out of 100 | Not effective | No |
If you say so, sure. :rolleyes:I Wear Pants;1077423 wrote:While at the same time practicing bigotry and hate which is another cornerstone apparently.
But it is.fish82;1077439 wrote:If you say so, sure. :rolleyes:
Already did. You do not know how to read a audited financial report. I am not here to hold your hand.fish82;1077359 wrote:My day is fine, thanks.
Please provide some backup for your "if they didn't have to take them, they would not" line.
If you're gonna ride someone's coattails to try and take me on, I'd suggest a different horse. That said, you do what you think is best. :laugh: