CDZ Healthy?

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations

For war




.

 

[Arianrhod]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations

For war




.

So if an entire population commits to abstain from any and all wars, to the ultimate possible extent of complete and total extermination of their own histories and heritages in the benefit and success of the violating oppressors, does the entire population become consistently healthy without the need for continuous contribution to common healthcare regulations?

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

 

[Arianrhod]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

To understand that health, at birth, is neither a commodity nor a matter of the sins of the fathers, but a complex legacy of inheritance and environment, and from then on is a result of a host of factors.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations

For war




.

So if an entire population commits to abstain from any and all wars, to the ultimate possible extent of complete and total extermination of their own histories and heritages in the benefit and success of the violating oppressors, does the entire population become consistently healthy without the need for continuous contribution to common healthcare regulations?

You a lawyer or something ?


.

Lol...

 

[Arianrhod]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

You may have been born healthy, and God bless. Not everyone is as fortunate. So, should people who aren't born healthy just die, or should they be assisted?

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations

For war




.

So if an entire population commits to abstain from any and all wars, to the ultimate possible extent of complete and total extermination of their own histories and heritages in the benefit and success of the violating oppressors, does the entire population become consistently healthy without the need for continuous contribution to common healthcare regulations?

You a lawyer or something ?


.

Lol...

Why do you ask? Because I mention common regulations? I don't need a lawyer, I am a participant of functioning law.

Would you like to proceed with your perspective about population healthcare?

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

To understand that health, at birth, is neither a commodity nor a matter of the sins of the fathers, but a complex legacy of inheritance and environment, and from then on is a result of a host of factors.

So what does my own perception of "health" have anything to do with understanding the reality of health?

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

You may have been born healthy, and God bless. Not everyone is as fortunate. So, should people who aren't born healthy just die, or should they be assisted?

I don't think that question pertains to understanding healthcare since the beginning assumption is already the absence of health.

 

[Arianrhod]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

You may have been born healthy, and God bless. Not everyone is as fortunate. So, should people who aren't born healthy just die, or should they be assisted?

I don't think that question pertains to understanding healthcare since the beginning assumption is already the absence of health.

Is it?

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

You may have been born healthy, and God bless. Not everyone is as fortunate. So, should people who aren't born healthy just die, or should they be assisted?

I don't think that question pertains to understanding healthcare since the beginning assumption is already the absence of health.

Is it?

Yes, please read your question again.

 

[Arianrhod]

Maybe you need to start with your perception of "health."

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

You may have been born healthy, and God bless. Not everyone is as fortunate. So, should people who aren't born healthy just die, or should they be assisted?

I don't think that question pertains to understanding healthcare since the beginning assumption is already the absence of health.

Is it?

Yes, please read your question again.

What I'm reading is your assumption that everyone is born healthy. Does not compute.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

The short answer is that we do not.

The long answer is that we do not 'need' government for anything at all. Government is a function of what we, collectively, want and believe can be done better by a central authority. As a people, we have found that certain functions of government are more efficient or better for the health of the people at large if it controls certain aspects of daily life. Things like requiring proper labeling of products or requiring warnings for products that are blatantly unhealthy. There is a real debate on weather or not government has a grater role to play is actual healthcare itself as well.

We do not need the government to ensure that criminals are caught and prosecuted for breaking the law (or even to define what is lawful itself) either but it certainly is a far better solution to most of us than a anarchy without law in general or a pseudo law enforced by the strongest - though that may be considered a form of government as well.

 

[Holos]

To be healthy and know that I am healthy, or to understand public and private governmental healthcare?

You may have been born healthy, and God bless. Not everyone is as fortunate. So, should people who aren't born healthy just die, or should they be assisted?

I don't think that question pertains to understanding healthcare since the beginning assumption is already the absence of health.

Is it?

Yes, please read your question again.

What I'm reading is your assumption that everyone is born healthy. Does not compute.

If you don't want to discuss about civil healthcare you can make another thread for us to discuss about both the implications and appropriate procedures parting from and resulting in individual causalities to debate the conceptual framework of birth defects.

This thread is about complete civil establishment of health. If you cannot extend your computational abilities to include entire populations and global transnational institutions to make a pertinent contribution to the original intended discussion I had set then we are better off with another thread.

I did not assume everyone has been born healthy in the past, and neither am I assuming everyone will be born healthy in the future. My initiated perspective with this thread has nothing to do with birth, death or demographic variation - that is a completely separate topic. I am first of all considering demographic stability. If you cannot comprehend such a vital concept to begin with then you are not truly eligible to participate in the discussion and further cooperate with the OP's designation.

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

The short answer is that we do not.

The long answer is that we do not 'need' government for anything at all. Government is a function of what we, collectively, want and believe can be done better by a central authority. As a people, we have found that certain functions of government are more efficient or better for the health of the people at large if it controls certain aspects of daily life. Things like requiring proper labeling of products or requiring warnings for products that are blatantly unhealthy. There is a real debate on weather or not government has a grater role to play is actual healthcare itself as well.

We do not need the government to ensure that criminals are caught and prosecuted for breaking the law (or even to define what is lawful itself) either but it certainly is a far better solution to most of us than a anarchy without law in general or a pseudo law enforced by the strongest - though that may be considered a form of government as well.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I generally agree on the definition and nature of government you have made evident, but I would substitute the word authority for agency in the first paragraph. Furthermore, I would like to inform you about the true nature of Anarchy as a lawful political organization, however we might want to use an active or passive government within Anarchic principles and procedures.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

The short answer is that we do not.

The long answer is that we do not 'need' government for anything at all. Government is a function of what we, collectively, want and believe can be done better by a central authority. As a people, we have found that certain functions of government are more efficient or better for the health of the people at large if it controls certain aspects of daily life. Things like requiring proper labeling of products or requiring warnings for products that are blatantly unhealthy. There is a real debate on weather or not government has a grater role to play is actual healthcare itself as well.

We do not need the government to ensure that criminals are caught and prosecuted for breaking the law (or even to define what is lawful itself) either but it certainly is a far better solution to most of us than a anarchy without law in general or a pseudo law enforced by the strongest - though that may be considered a form of government as well.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I generally agree on the definition and nature of government you have made evident, but I would substitute the word authority for agency in the first paragraph. Furthermore, I would like to inform you about the true nature of Anarchy as a lawful political organization, however we might want to use an active or passive government within Anarchic principles and procedures.

Why agency over authority? What functional difference do you see in changing the statement in that manner?

I do not see how anarchy can be considered a lawful political organization. Certainly you can have a lawful and organized group that calls for anarchy within the nation itself but an actual anarchy cannot, by definition be a 'lawful' or organized in nature.

Definition of ANARCHY

The absence of government and law are the definition of anarchy.

 

[Holos]

Why do we need governments to ensure the health of populations? And what is the true use for civil health insurance, public or private?

The short answer is that we do not.

The long answer is that we do not 'need' government for anything at all. Government is a function of what we, collectively, want and believe can be done better by a central authority. As a people, we have found that certain functions of government are more efficient or better for the health of the people at large if it controls certain aspects of daily life. Things like requiring proper labeling of products or requiring warnings for products that are blatantly unhealthy. There is a real debate on weather or not government has a grater role to play is actual healthcare itself as well.

We do not need the government to ensure that criminals are caught and prosecuted for breaking the law (or even to define what is lawful itself) either but it certainly is a far better solution to most of us than a anarchy without law in general or a pseudo law enforced by the strongest - though that may be considered a form of government as well.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I generally agree on the definition and nature of government you have made evident, but I would substitute the word authority for agency in the first paragraph. Furthermore, I would like to inform you about the true nature of Anarchy as a lawful political organization, however we might want to use an active or passive government within Anarchic principles and procedures.

Why agency over authority? What functional difference do you see in changing the statement in that manner?

I do not see how anarchy can be considered a lawful political organization. Certainly you can have a lawful and organized group that calls for anarchy within the nation itself but an actual anarchy cannot, by definition be a 'lawful' or organized in nature.

Definition of ANARCHY

The absence of government and law are the definition of anarchy.

Authority implies command and obligation. Agency implies opportunity and collaboration. The functional difference in making the substitution is to effectively halt any impulses or disappointments we might come to experience if control is not distributive. There is a tendency to become distant from a center, meanwhile all citizens should and indeed are functioning political participants working for the government as the government works for them in many different and mutual ways. An agency is flexible in many ways, an authority concentrates on specific singularities. That is why the government is closer to be an agency and people are closer to be authorities, allowing authorities (people) to be flexible and increasingly efficient by ultimately being represented in also increasingly efficient groups larger than themselves (governments).

The definition you have provided comes in my dictionary as "mass hysteria" or "collective hysteria".

Anarchy is an advanced political organization form (government) that requires all individuals to be their proper authorities by acknowledging all individuals to also be their proper authorities within mutual collaboration. It is not truly the case that there are no laws in Anarchy, but that the laws are ultimately and beneficially flexible and may change unexpectedly quick to benefit the totality of society. Only in a dictatorship dictionary definitions would be considered absolute.