Are political beliefs equal: Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

[emilynghiem]

1. But the mandates are not requiring that ppl pay their health care costs.
It requires ppl to pay for insurance which is paying private insurance companies.

Doctors get paid for the work they do. Period. Nobody is asking them to offer their labor for free. Certainly not under the way things work now, nor under any idea I've ever heard proposed.


B. Also isnt it still taking ppl labor to penalize them a percent off their taxes to pay for the medical services for others.

So even if those medical service providers arent the ones being enslaved, arent the ppl whose income from labor is seized by govt being forced to forfeit that labor.

Hi Greenbeard
Sorry we are talking past each other.
Two points
A. For doctors who cant afford the burdens of the ACA regulations, if they stayed in business they would not be compensated enough for the work required to run their practices. They would run at a loss so this would be taxing their labor and resources, costing them too much.

B. To clarify the servitude issue
1. Under free market you pay for the services you use, then have the OPTION of things like insurance, Voluntary charity (not penalized as with ACA that restricts exemptions) or nonprofit business or medical program donations or approving govt programs you agree to pay for under AgREED terms so this is representing you not enslaving you.
2. You arent forced to pay for the services of other ppl you didnt agree to pay

Ppl may have agreed to pay more to haveca free system of choice. They didnt agree to give up liberty and be forced to pay for services from other ppl using them UNLESS they CONSENT to the terms.

What is missing is CONSENT

Note: as for slavery vs servitude
A. The article in the OP spelled out this out.
Please read that link that clarified this point.
B. In addition I also use slavery as a political metaphor when the govt does not respect the free will of citizens to consent, dissent or petition with equal defense and due process.

Involuntary servitude is clarified as different from slave trade slavery if you ck the OP link.

With "POLITICAL SLAVERY" paying 40% tax rate to govt equals 2/5 govt ownership of our labor and only 3/5 free where we keep the income from our labor. Without representation and CONSENT of the taxpayer it becomes involuntary enslavement in that sense. We have to pay off a certain % of our income to govt to invoke freedoms and privileges of citizenship, so if taxation is forced without our vote or consent it is protested as tyrannical abuse of govt power.

The ppl must consent for any business contract to be binding if we are expected to purchase private insurance, much more be REqUIRED to buy it,we must consent to the terms.

---_----------______

First the doctors are enslaved because they're going to stop getting paid, now everyone but the doctors is enslaved because somebody has to pay those doctors?

Are we at least agreed at this point that nobody wants medical professionals to work without compensation?

C. Also what about doctors who cant afford to operate under the given mandates. Many doctors have closed their offices. So their choices are to quit their business, or to allocate more of their labor or monetary resources due to added administrative or other regulations. so to prevent from being enslaved by more than they can afford to operate, they are forced to quit. Does that count?

What regulations are you talking about? Someone practicing medicine being required to possess a medical license? I'm pretty sure we require them to go to medical school, too, before we let them practice medicine. Oh the humanity!

You're using some very strange conception of slavery.[/QUOTE]

 

[G.T.]

Thats a lot of bumble jargain in response to my post emily, and not a response at ALL to the point I made. Like......not at all.

 

[G.T.]

Try slowing it down a bit, and breathe when you read it.

Im sure next time you could excuse yourself from skipping the logic like you just did, but be more subtle next time.

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

C_Clayton_Jones
Right, it's even WORSE,

Taxpayers are mandated to PURCHASE INSURANCE
which isn't directly paying for health care, but is through PRIVATE profit making companies.

So it's even worse than that!

That's why the Health Care for All lobbies are AGAINST the Insurance mandates creating a middle man for profit.

NOBODY I know is for the ACA mandates unless it is a political move to try to push for something else.
In the meantime, this is unconstitutional by establishing beliefs and discriminating by creed -- exempting people who COMPLY with the belief in govt health care mandates while penalizing people who believe in free choice of paying for health care, but are being fined for their beliefs.

You remind me of when people can't understand how anyone could justify slavery.
Well, it built the economy, which relied on slave labor.

Sounds very much like your mentality here, where the ends justifies the means.
And you somehow override the fact people don't agree to forfeit their labor to pay for mandates they didn't vote on or consent to.

You have the same mindset of people who endorsed slavery as a necessary stage in national development.
To you it is justified to deprive people of liberty; to others it is not. There are better ways to provide
health care WITHOUT mandating insurance on the federal level. If people don't agree, then it's usurping their labor
to pay for services to others they didn't agree to voluntarily. So that's a form of involuntary servitude.

C_Clayton_Jones You have the right to volunteer your own labor, salary and services but not that of other people. This is the same mentality of the rich in power justifying usurping the labor of the poor.

Here it is the political dominant view (of beliefs in health care as a right through govt) usurping the will and labor of
the oppressed view (of free choice in how to provide health care to the masses, such as through FREE spiritual healing instead of FOR PROFIT insurance).

It's still the oppressive class and political belief DOMINATING and censoring the oppressed class with other beliefs.

And last I checked, neither Congress, Government, nor any public institution had the right to abridge or prohibit the free exercise of religion, deprive people of liberty without due process or impose servitude unless as restitution for a crime,
or discriminate on the basis of creed. And here you support federal mandates that fine people for believing in free choice of how to pay for health care other ways besides insurance, such as by reducing costs of crime and disease through Spiritual Healing that is FREE.

You are the reason the liberals comes across as pushing a slavemaster relationship on people who don't know their rights.
Shame on you.

All it would take to make the ACA mandates constitutional is to recognize them as VOLUNTARY to opt into. And then that would be lawful. But mandating them under penalty is not only unconstitutional, but goes against human nature and free will.

Slavery was considered part of property laws until it was established in writing as unconstitutional.
So it was still wrong and caused damage, even when it was endorsed by govt.

Sorry you can't see that same paradigm applies here.
Which explains how perfectly good people like Jefferson could have justified
slavery as a necessary institution at the time. You remind me of that kind of thinking!

You are not required to have health insurance. The healthcare mandate is a healthcare tax that you can exempt yourself from by having health insurance.

Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

Hi NYcarbineer
1. Because the ONLY CHOICE that gets exemption is INSURANCE. Paying cash for your expenses, donating or providing free health care through a business school ir charity DOESNT COUNT.
So it is the GOVT regulating WHICH CHOICES including which religious programs count as exemptions; it is discriminating on the basis of CREED who gets a federal penalty financially.

2. Imagine it were the other way around.
What if prolife Christians passed a bill reducing costs of health care and saving lives and resources by MANDATING spiritual healing. So citizens who comply dont pay a tax. Anyone who refuses has to pay an extra 1% 2% 3% for each year they dont comply. And NO OTHER choices get you exempted. if your fine went into a Christian prolife program to help more ppl, woudnt you argue why cant I pay my portion into another health program I believe in that works too. Why is X program the only choice that doesnt get fined, when I dont BELIEVE the govt has the right to mandate X, because Y and Z are Effective ways I should be free to fund.

Wouldnt you argue govt cannot exempt prolife people while penalizing others with a selective tax based on your beliefs?

 

[Darkwind]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

C_Clayton_Jones
Right, it's even WORSE,

Taxpayers are mandated to PURCHASE INSURANCE
which isn't directly paying for health care, but is through PRIVATE profit making companies.

So it's even worse than that!

That's why the Health Care for All lobbies are AGAINST the Insurance mandates creating a middle man for profit.

NOBODY I know is for the ACA mandates unless it is a political move to try to push for something else.
In the meantime, this is unconstitutional by establishing beliefs and discriminating by creed -- exempting people who COMPLY with the belief in govt health care mandates while penalizing people who believe in free choice of paying for health care, but are being fined for their beliefs.

You remind me of when people can't understand how anyone could justify slavery.
Well, it built the economy, which relied on slave labor.

Sounds very much like your mentality here, where the ends justifies the means.
And you somehow override the fact people don't agree to forfeit their labor to pay for mandates they didn't vote on or consent to.

You have the same mindset of people who endorsed slavery as a necessary stage in national development.
To you it is justified to deprive people of liberty; to others it is not. There are better ways to provide
health care WITHOUT mandating insurance on the federal level. If people don't agree, then it's usurping their labor
to pay for services to others they didn't agree to voluntarily. So that's a form of involuntary servitude.

C_Clayton_Jones You have the right to volunteer your own labor, salary and services but not that of other people. This is the same mentality of the rich in power justifying usurping the labor of the poor.

Here it is the political dominant view (of beliefs in health care as a right through govt) usurping the will and labor of
the oppressed view (of free choice in how to provide health care to the masses, such as through FREE spiritual healing instead of FOR PROFIT insurance).

It's still the oppressive class and political belief DOMINATING and censoring the oppressed class with other beliefs.

And last I checked, neither Congress, Government, nor any public institution had the right to abridge or prohibit the free exercise of religion, deprive people of liberty without due process or impose servitude unless as restitution for a crime,
or discriminate on the basis of creed. And here you support federal mandates that fine people for believing in free choice of how to pay for health care other ways besides insurance, such as by reducing costs of crime and disease through Spiritual Healing that is FREE.

You are the reason the liberals comes across as pushing a slavemaster relationship on people who don't know their rights.
Shame on you.

All it would take to make the ACA mandates constitutional is to recognize them as VOLUNTARY to opt into. And then that would be lawful. But mandating them under penalty is not only unconstitutional, but goes against human nature and free will.

Slavery was considered part of property laws until it was established in writing as unconstitutional.
So it was still wrong and caused damage, even when it was endorsed by govt.

Sorry you can't see that same paradigm applies here.
Which explains how perfectly good people like Jefferson could have justified
slavery as a necessary institution at the time. You remind me of that kind of thinking!

You are not required to have health insurance. The healthcare mandate is a healthcare tax that you can exempt yourself from by having health insurance.

Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

Specious argument.

The government mandates you have a stick. But you can exempt yourself by having your own stick.

You are REQUIRED to have that stick, however.

 

[G.T.]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

Thanks for reading this over guno

 

[guno]

If someone who has no health insurance goes to the hospital, who pays that persons bills?.. Everyone, as it is reflection in hospital costs which are passed on to EVERYONE

 

[G.T.]

If someone who has no health insurance goes to the hospital, who pays that persons bills?.. Everyone, as it is reflection in hospital costs which are passed on to EVERYONE

Plus its more important than natl defense

 

[emilynghiem]

If someone who has no health insurance goes to the hospital, who pays that persons bills?.. Everyone, as it is reflection in hospital costs which are passed on to EVERYONE

Hi guno
You can require ppl to pay their own hospital bills.

Where do you make this leap that EVERYONE even those who didnt incur or skip bills have to LOSE THEIR LIBERTY and be forced to buy INSURANCE as "the only legal choice" to avoid a FINE.

That is like saying if SOME ppl skip out on paying traffic tickets, everyone is FORCED to pay more into a fund because the govt is too LAZY to go after the ones who SKIPPED paying! Why punish the LAWABIDING citizens who didnt incur those costs or skip on them. Shouldnt the govt go after the ones who incurred those costs, if the point is to stop freeloading off taxpayers.

 

[emilynghiem]

If someone who has no health insurance goes to the hospital, who pays that persons bills?.. Everyone, as it is reflection in hospital costs which are passed on to EVERYONE

Plus its more important than natl defense

Difference is that individuals, charities, businesses and schools can provide health care. Only govt is authorized to do national security.

If you overload the federal level with things that ppl or states can do, that takes away focus from national issues only govt can do.
We'd have less red tape and more direct accountability if decisions are made locally, like the difference between cities deciding the ordinances per city versus ALL CITIES trying to pass ONE set of laws for ALL their citizens to agree with in EVERYTHING. The state level should be reserved for things all ppl agree belong on state level, and same with federal ,NOT throwing everything onto the state or federal just because you failed to address your own issues locally, or that overloads the system and makes it top heavy and harder to get laws passed and changed with a huge backlog concentrated at the top.

Its like bogging the parents down with cleaning up messes the teenagers and young adults can do on their own when the parents need to be focused on work to run the household. Instead of running to mommy and daddy to wipe your hineys and kiss your booboos you need to quit horseplaying around. Only call on mom and dad when its an emergency.

Note: the original plans for insurance was CATASTROPHIC only. The idea was NEVER to have FEDERAL govt dictate or manage ALL health care. That is a liberal belief to use govt for that. Half the nation believes otherwise, so both BELIEFS should be equal choices under law, like how prochoice and prolife have to remain separate programs because they dont believe in being forced by govt under the policies of the other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thats a lot of bumble jargain in response to my post emily, and not a response at ALL to the point I made. Like......not at all.

Ok G.T. is this a simpler explanation of how insurance is being forced by penaltyof law:

1. Before ACA was passed, ppl had Liberty to buy insurance if that was their way of covering costs, or could pay their costs out directly. People were free to invest in charities or in medical school programs and would not be fined for how money was spent to provide health care.
2. After ACA ppl no longer have this liberty, even if they did not commit a crime or skipout on any bills. Now they are required to pay for INSURANCE not health care up front. Either buy insurance or pay 1% 2% 3% etc of salary directly without a choice of other options previously available, INCLUDING the freedom to pay for health care directly instead of being forced to buy insurance. even if you build a charity hospital that doesnt count as an exemption. The only choice is insurance, not creating health care that is natural, free, cost effective, there is no choice except what the govt dictates as an exemption or you are FINED a PENALTY.

Either way, ALL citizens are forced to pay more than before in place of where we USED to have FREE CHOICE how to pay without penalty.

Do you see how, either way, an added cost was imposed UP FRONT on ALL ppl without any proof or due process that person would not pay. This is treating ppl as criminal and punishing them with a fine UP FRONT, costing us FREEDOM we used to have without getting fined for our choices how to pay or provide health care. Normally to lose liberty happens AFTER a crime is committed and ppl go through DUE PROCESS. Normally a tax is passed by representation and consent. Normally if a group like prolife imposes a BELIEF by law forcing others to pay into that against their beliefs, that is protested as violating church and state separation. But here, justifying depriving EVERYONE of free choice or liberty, by imposing the BELIEF that health care is a right, is being established as a national religion based on FAITH that insurance is the only way and FINING any other ways or beliefs in paying freely other ways. No Constitutional Amendment was voted on to AGREE to give that to federal govt.

Is that more clear?

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

C_Clayton_Jones
Right, it's even WORSE,

Taxpayers are mandated to PURCHASE INSURANCE
which isn't directly paying for health care, but is through PRIVATE profit making companies.

So it's even worse than that!

That's why the Health Care for All lobbies are AGAINST the Insurance mandates creating a middle man for profit.

NOBODY I know is for the ACA mandates unless it is a political move to try to push for something else.
In the meantime, this is unconstitutional by establishing beliefs and discriminating by creed -- exempting people who COMPLY with the belief in govt health care mandates while penalizing people who believe in free choice of paying for health care, but are being fined for their beliefs.

You remind me of when people can't understand how anyone could justify slavery.
Well, it built the economy, which relied on slave labor.

Sounds very much like your mentality here, where the ends justifies the means.
And you somehow override the fact people don't agree to forfeit their labor to pay for mandates they didn't vote on or consent to.

You have the same mindset of people who endorsed slavery as a necessary stage in national development.
To you it is justified to deprive people of liberty; to others it is not. There are better ways to provide
health care WITHOUT mandating insurance on the federal level. If people don't agree, then it's usurping their labor
to pay for services to others they didn't agree to voluntarily. So that's a form of involuntary servitude.

C_Clayton_Jones You have the right to volunteer your own labor, salary and services but not that of other people. This is the same mentality of the rich in power justifying usurping the labor of the poor.

Here it is the political dominant view (of beliefs in health care as a right through govt) usurping the will and labor of
the oppressed view (of free choice in how to provide health care to the masses, such as through FREE spiritual healing instead of FOR PROFIT insurance).

It's still the oppressive class and political belief DOMINATING and censoring the oppressed class with other beliefs.

And last I checked, neither Congress, Government, nor any public institution had the right to abridge or prohibit the free exercise of religion, deprive people of liberty without due process or impose servitude unless as restitution for a crime,
or discriminate on the basis of creed. And here you support federal mandates that fine people for believing in free choice of how to pay for health care other ways besides insurance, such as by reducing costs of crime and disease through Spiritual Healing that is FREE.

You are the reason the liberals comes across as pushing a slavemaster relationship on people who don't know their rights.
Shame on you.

All it would take to make the ACA mandates constitutional is to recognize them as VOLUNTARY to opt into. And then that would be lawful. But mandating them under penalty is not only unconstitutional, but goes against human nature and free will.

Slavery was considered part of property laws until it was established in writing as unconstitutional.
So it was still wrong and caused damage, even when it was endorsed by govt.

Sorry you can't see that same paradigm applies here.
Which explains how perfectly good people like Jefferson could have justified
slavery as a necessary institution at the time. You remind me of that kind of thinking!

You are not required to have health insurance. The healthcare mandate is a healthcare tax that you can exempt yourself from by having health insurance.

Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

Specious argument.

The government mandates you have a stick. But you can exempt yourself by having your own stick.

You are REQUIRED to have that stick, however.

Not only that, Darkwind and G.T.
The govt requires you to pay for a stick when a tree is needed, or a forest.
But if you want to invest money into planting trees or forests to cover the true demand, you are still fined if you dont take money from that and spend it on sticks that dont cover the full need. It is distracting from the real work needed to grow enough forest.

Both the singlepayer on the left want a full forest, and the free market on the right want freedom to grow trees naturally .but both are screwed and stuck with this bill requiring ppl to buy sticks instead of growing real trees and restoring whole forests as we really need for universal coverage.

We are fighting over sticks.

 

[G.T.]

The Care itself should be mandatory to pay for for all Americans.

Insurance is simply the mechanism because the VAST MAJORITY cant afford the cost directly.

If you have a better was to ensure everyone pays toward health care cost, and YES have it be mandatory just like defense spending - lets hear it. Let me know how the Average wage Citizen pays for a, say, 14, 000 dollar three day hospital stay. Im all ears.

 

[dblack]

If someone who has no health insurance goes to the hospital, who pays that persons bills?.. Everyone, as it is reflection in hospital costs which are passed on to EVERYONE

That's simply not true. If a hospital chooses to forgive health care debts it's up to them how that gets dealt with. As a business, the most they can do in terms of distributing the loss, is to pass them on to their other customers - which isn't "everyone". The only way the costs can be forced on everyone is via government.

 

[dblack]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

G.T. - I'm curious about this idea that healthcare is a right because it's a necessity. Would you say all of life's necessities are rights?

 

[G.T.]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

G.T. - I'm curious about this idea that healthcare is a right because it's a necessity. Would you say all of life's necessities are rights?

I think life is the very backbone - the foundation of all other rights.

But this isnt a discussion of guaranteed rights, its a discussion of government responsibility.

Considering what taxation pays for - life itself seems far more important than national defense, which is short for "just in case."

 

[dblack]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

G.T. - I'm curious about this idea that healthcare is a right because it's a necessity. Would you say all of life's necessities are rights?

I think life is the very backbone - the foundation of all other rights.

But this isnt a discussion of guaranteed rights, its a discussion of government responsibility.

Ahh.... well, in my view, the responsibility of government is protecting our guaranteed rights. I assume you see it differently.

 

[G.T.]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

G.T. - I'm curious about this idea that healthcare is a right because it's a necessity. Would you say all of life's necessities are rights?

I think life is the very backbone - the foundation of all other rights.

But this isnt a discussion of guaranteed rights, its a discussion of government responsibility.

Ahh.... well, in my view, the responsibility of government is protecting our guaranteed rights. I assume you see it differently.

Life is a guaranteed right.

Your life is like a million more times likely to be taken by a health issue than a murder.

Im talking about using our brains here, thats all.

 

[dblack]

I think that every single person uses health care.

It was ruled like a tax in this way, as taxes are justified b.c. everyone benefits from that which they pay for - National Defense, for instance. Police and Fire Rescue, for instance.

Everyone benefits, so everyone (as scaled by the ugly progressive tax system) pays. That is its justification, as with having health insurance, yes insurance, the cost of care for the uninsured was so vast that when the uninsured cant pay, costs plow upward for EVERYone (for care AND insurance).

To me the mandate is justified by this. EVERYone has skin in the game, i.e. WILL use health care. Its as basic as the very right to life, especially at this point in science and history.

Health care is as important if not MORE important than National Defense.


Just because the founders werent bright enough at the time to realize this doesnt mean its unAmerican. We progress. They some of them thought slavery was completely kosher, too. So yea, they missed some shit and were lacking.

G.T. - I'm curious about this idea that healthcare is a right because it's a necessity. Would you say all of life's necessities are rights?

I think life is the very backbone - the foundation of all other rights.

But this isnt a discussion of guaranteed rights, its a discussion of government responsibility.

Ahh.... well, in my view, the responsibility of government is protecting our guaranteed rights. I assume you see it differently.

Life is a guaranteed right.

Your life is like a million more times likely to be taken by a health issue than a murder.

Im talking about using our brains here, thats all.

That's always a good start. I also think we need to find consensus on the purpose of government; particularly on whether it's valid to use it as a tool of convenience - to get things we want from others.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Care itself should be mandatory to pay for for all Americans.

Insurance is simply the mechanism because the VAST MAJORITY cant afford the cost directly.

If you have a better was to ensure everyone pays toward health care cost, and YES have it be mandatory just like defense spending - lets hear it. Let me know how the Average wage Citizen pays for a, say, 14, 000 dollar three day hospital stay. Im all ears.

Best way to respect free choice and conflicting beliefs is to organize by party:
1. Democrats and Greens have enough singlepayer supporters to make that work for participants.
If republicans dont want to pay in, then approve prison reforms like cutting billions wasted on capital punishment or nonviolent drug offenses and use that budget to pay fir health care. Mandates will only apply to ppl who committed crimes and there is justification for losing liberty and being required to pay costs plus restitition for what those persons are responsible for.

Note: members of each state part
. or group can decide whether to mandate insurance, or make it optional as long as costs are reduced or reimbursed to get covered. Insurance is not the best way because it still doesnt cover all the ppl or all the costs. If you look at prison budgets wasting 50k per person per year to keep them from working to pay the cost to taxpayers, surely those same resources could be better soent on health care, especally early intervention and treatment to prvent criminal illness or addiction from escalating into the costly cycle of incarceration that is charged to taxpayers instead of paying for education and health care.

2. If Libertarians and Republicans want free market, they set up a system their members are registered to use. Anyone can join if its free market. To pay their share of public services, they can seek reimbursement to taxpayers of trillions in unchecked war spending and rework that to pay for veteran programs that can be expanded to serve more ppl as the waste is stopped. So the money for building teaching hospitals and public health services comes from cleaning up the war contracts that are killing the budget.

3. Note: don't tell me these alternatives have to be in place before removing the mandates. When ROE v WADE removed the ban on abortions and opened up free choice without penalty, this free choice was declared first. Then the alternative restriction get proposed AFTERWARDS that would replace the ban. So it is NOT required to agree what to replace the laws with before striking down the mandate as violating free choice and due process. We can declare the mandates optional, and keep the emergency cases under the party programs that support keeping health care mandatory for those members who agree to pay for it through whatever means they subscribe to.

Prochoice and prolife policies can also be divided by party. Separating how to pay for health care by beliefs can separate prochoice sytems from prolife programs so ppl dont fight legally against being forced to pay into the other system they oppose. They can be required to pay into the one they want to mandate for their members who agree, and leave both paths as equal options open to all other citizens to choose from.