Penalties grow for not getting insurance

[emilynghiem]

Within the hour, one of the Usual Suspects will accuse you of being (A) a dual, (B) a liar, (C) paid by the U.S. insurance industry to spread propaganda, or (D) some combination thereof.

Brave post, that man!

Its not perfect but folk memory recalls a time when you needed cash to get the doctor to see you.Many didnt. I am from Wrexham and I read a story about a local woman who died because the Dr would not attend late at night. She still owed him money from her last visit. He went round in the morning but she was dead. Who wants to go back to that barbaric system.
Our Drs have recently been on strike in opposition to the government and have had 100% support from the public.Its likely that the tory war against the Drs will bring them down. Speed the day.

Dear Tommy Tainant to put things in fuller perspective
How many people die of drug or alcholic addiction, suicide or homicide
who could have been saved by Christian spiritual healing that cures the root sickness in abuse/addiction cases.

Yet we would not think to "mandate spiritual healing" through the government to save lives.

People can choose that freely, and there are PLENTY of charities, churches and nonprofits that provide this help FREELY.

So why can't the people who care about this sickness and health so much
be held to the same standards as Christians are who want to save lives.

The missionaries I know can only save so many orphans, and have watched children die due to lack of resources.

Is your solution to use govt to FORCE everyone to pay to save lives through charities?
Where does it end?

Surely we can find a more consistent way to free up resources to cover health care
than to TAX TAXPAYERS by forcing them to buy insurance.

I mentioned before reforming the prison system.
If taxpayers are spending 50,000 a year per person, why isn't anyone complaining about that cost
and trying to save that money?

Instead of charging taxpayers more, why not stop the waste of resources that could have
ALREADY paid for health care, education and housing at the rate we are blowing on a failed prison system.

We haven't even looked at other means of funding health care.

Taxing citizens and making people buy insurance are not the only way;
in fact, they take resources AWAY from other programs. Why can't these be the equal choice
and responsibility of taxpayers? To pay for the programs that do the best job and cover
the most people, so naturally the more effective programs will get the most support?

Some of the best medical programs I know of are nonprofit charities, run by
volunteer participation and donations. Nobody has to FORCE people to fund these in order to save lives.

Why can't we model programs after those, so people freely and naturally choose
to fund what works most cost effectively?

I already offer the free spiritual healing programs as a way to cut the costs.
Why can't all methods be freely chosen, based on what is the most cost-effective solution?

If you want to use taxes as an incentive:
Why not give tax breaks for people or groups investing in building sustainable
teaching hospitals and medical training/service programs?

Why punish people for not going along with govt mandated insurance as the only choice?
It's still not covering all the people or all the expenses.
So if other programs are needed anyway, to fill the gaps,
why punish people for investing in other programs that are clearly needed anyway?
Why not REWARD that investment instead of punishing it as "not a choice under ACA."

I am not sure what point you are making. Historically healthcare was the preserve of the rich.
Your health is a lottery in many ways. My view is that if the whole community pays in a little bit then everyone is covered. I dont know if I am going to slip on the ice or get Alzeihmers. Dont know if my neighbour is either. But if we all chip in a bit then we are all covered. How can I sit comfortably in my house when my neighbour is suffering next door. My duty as a Christian is to help him. And his duty is to help me. That is community, that is what binds us together.

Dear Tommy Tainant That's fine, but it still has to be FREE CHOICE
of which groups or programs people want to fund for health care.
Everyone can be covered this way, but it isn't the place or duty of govt to mandate what those choices are.

The same way Christian groups are allowed an exemption for members of
health sharing ministries, why not open the door for ALL groups to have equal freedom
and not be penalized for not choosing one of the options approved by govt.

That's exempting people based on religious affiliation that govt pre-approves,
while penalizing someone who believes in a different way to fund sustainable health care.

That's discriminating by religion and creed.

You've made me think how I would present this as a revision to the ACA mandates.
What I would suggest to lawmakers to minimalize the legislative changes needed
is to create an option in Texas (as a model for others) where the people or groups
who invest in creating a Singlepayer system can get taxbreaks and deduct whatever they
pay under ACA by applying that money (or credit) to the plan they really believe in;
which I would suggest be organized by the Democrats and Greens who seem to have networked
the support for such a program. And for the Republicans and Libertarian types who believe in
Free Market, give tax breaks and allow the mandate to be paid toward or credited toward
a system of reforming the VA to provide health care not just for vets but for the membership under that plan.
If insurance is part of that plan, it remains the choice of that group and its members whether to mandate
it or keep it optional within their plan.

I'd ask the groups with the more liberal beliefs in universal health care as a right to
commit to setting up a more cost-effective prison system of corrections through medical treatment,
diagnostics, therapy, rehabilitation and restitution, and base the state alternative on that system
converted into facilities for providing health care to the general public (probably by integrating
medical education and internships to provide public health services on a sustainable basis).

If the major parties agree to organize their own tracks for state alternatives,
so that taxpayers have a choice of which programs match their beliefs
(in universal care, singlepayer, prochoice or prolife, free market or mandated membership)
perhaps the mandate and exemptions could be revised to include that option,
and let the members of the parties or groups decide the terms for themselves instead of
fighting over what to impose through govt for all people to follow.

so if these two major groups who'd rather fund some other way, besides insurance mandates,
can agree to use their party networks to set up state alternatives, why not give tax breaks,
credits and exemptions for that. And let people choose how to work it out themselves
so it is the most cost effective for their members paying for it, voting and participating in it.

Free choice is a myth where taxation is concerned.There are many things that I dont want my taxes spent on and I try and vote accordingly.Other than that its just tough.There are things that the state should provide that we all use and benefit from. Roads,defence,schools and so on. There shouldnt be an opt out there.
If you get knocked down by a car, anywhere in the UK, an ambulance will pick you up and take you to the local hospital.Trained staff will set your bones,stitch up your wounds and provide he medication you need to get better. It benefits all of us so why should a certain group opt out of that ?

1. Yes, if you really want free choice, that is why the Libertarians Republicans Conservatives and other Constitutionalists are saying that liberty is inherent in human nature, and the point is to limit govt from TAKING and REGULATING that freedom.

the other school of thought is that rights depend politically on govt to protect;
and thus this "myth" that you can depend on govt to protect your free choice.

You just made the argument for why people ARE saying to keep health care out of govt.
Or you are giving up your freedom to the political whim of whoever is in power and can change laws
or refuse to change them where you're stuck for years waiting to elect people who might change them.
Either way it's a disaster expecting federal govt to manage personal and financial health care decisions at the top,
when the people affected are at the local grassroots level, so that's wehre the decision makign should take place.

2. As for emergency care, the argument is whether you can force people IN ADVANCE who haven't
used any services or reneged on any bill to "buy insurance in advance" assuming they won't pay their costs otherwise.

Why not go after the people who use the services if the point is responsibility for paying?

Otherwise, it is a violation of the Constitutional laws
* that nobody should be deprived of liberty without due process of laws
(ie there was no proof that taxpayers have or intend to abuse public resources without paying BEFORE depriving liberty by forcing them to buy insurance, and not even giving people the freedom to pay for the costs themselves, or pay for other ways to provide ER and other services sustainably, but ONLY mandating insurance or a limited number of options regulated by federal govt instead of leaving this to local decisions that citizens CAN participate in democratically BEFORE losing rights)
* and against "involuntary servitude" except as penalty for a crime duly convicted of
by "in effect" forcing people to work and give up that income to a system they didn't agree to pay for or be under,
WITHOUT first being convicted of a crime for which such a penalty is owed.

It is ONE thing if people actually incur costs and you are making people sign a contract that they will pay their costs.
But nowhere in the Constitution is the federal govt authorized to mandate HOW people will pay their health care costs,
much less force them to buy private insurance or be penalized.

Whatever services you say will benefit everyone, public housing, public schools, public health care,
to pay for it, would be a LOCAL decision how to manage the costs and access so there is
"no taxation without representation" and the management and costs remain ACCOUNTABLE to the people
affected and paying for this. If you look at the corruption of public housing and schools, when decisions are made at a higher level AWAY from the taxpayers and families in the actual districts, who are actually paying and affected by school policies, that's where corruption and waste happens because of lack of direct accountability.

So that's where people are arguing not to make health care decisions on a federal level REMOVED
from the local implementation that should be governed LOCALLY to represent the people and taxpayers.

The arguments against ACA is that the FEDERAL govt has no Constitutional authority
and is NOT DESIGNED to manage health care and how to pay for it.

The arguments is that the rights not stated EXPRESSLY in the Constitution
are reserved to the STATES and to the PEOPLE. So the people state by state
should be managing this, not the federal govt in Washington where people don't have direct vote on policies.

The problem with liberals trying to run things through federal govt is that they generally do not teach individuals or groups LOCALLY how to manage, exercise and protect their own Constitutional rights and freedoms; the liberal agenda pushed by the Democrats promotes depending on federal govt and officials to push social programs and benefits so they can get votes.

If the health care programs were resolved on a STATE level (such as the idea of reforming prison budgets)
the President could not use that to run for office on a FEDERAL level.

The political interests in pushing issues up to the FEDERAL level is for power and control in order to have a selling point to get elected.

The people who really want to solve problems sustainably would push to bring those programs
back to the States and people to manage more directly and democratically.

But democratizing the system spreads the power and responsibility unilaterally, shared among the public
and working with all institutions, private and public, to make this work most cost effectively.

This idea of sustainable solutions on a grassroots level is more INDIVIDUALIZED per state and district.
For candidates to prove that works would actually take implementing them.
But they run for office based on simple concepts they can pitch and sell quickly through the media.

People want shortcuts but those are not realistic.
The real work it's going to take is on the state level and organizing resources directly,
not depending on solutions to be mandated from the top down by federal govt.

Tommy Tainant we can keep the hospitals running sustainably
when we have local ownership and responsibility, so no resources are wasted
on corruption,crime and abuse, and the local management has direct interest
and investment in making sure the programs are cost-effective and meeting the local demands.

Again, addressing crime and prisons is a MAJOR source of lost resources I would tackle
in order to save more resources and medical help for the cases that can't be helped.
Crime, prosecution and incarceration CAN be prevented, and thus the costs wasted on these.

Instead of going after taxpayers who happen to make enough money to tap their tax returns,
I would go after the mentally ill and gang members who abuse arms to put people in the
hospital and cost everyone more money. Get rid of that waste, and there will be more
resources freed up to invest in sustainable schools, health and other social services.

Tommy Tainant it's not a matter of rejecting the public hospitals open to everyone,
but arguing how to pay for this without criminalizing or penalizing law abiding citizens who committed no crimes
and haven't refused to pay bills before being forced by federal govt to buy private insurance and lose liberties.

 

[emilynghiem]

Within the hour, one of the Usual Suspects will accuse you of being (A) a dual, (B) a liar, (C) paid by the U.S. insurance industry to spread propaganda, or (D) some combination thereof.

Brave post, that man!

Its not perfect but folk memory recalls a time when you needed cash to get the doctor to see you.Many didnt. I am from Wrexham and I read a story about a local woman who died because the Dr would not attend late at night. She still owed him money from her last visit. He went round in the morning but she was dead. Who wants to go back to that barbaric system.
Our Drs have recently been on strike in opposition to the government and have had 100% support from the public.Its likely that the tory war against the Drs will bring them down. Speed the day.

Dear Tommy Tainant to put things in fuller perspective
How many people die of drug or alcholic addiction, suicide or homicide
who could have been saved by Christian spiritual healing that cures the root sickness in abuse/addiction cases.

Yet we would not think to "mandate spiritual healing" through the government to save lives.

People can choose that freely, and there are PLENTY of charities, churches and nonprofits that provide this help FREELY.

So why can't the people who care about this sickness and health so much
be held to the same standards as Christians are who want to save lives.

The missionaries I know can only save so many orphans, and have watched children die due to lack of resources.

Is your solution to use govt to FORCE everyone to pay to save lives through charities?
Where does it end?

Surely we can find a more consistent way to free up resources to cover health care
than to TAX TAXPAYERS by forcing them to buy insurance.

I mentioned before reforming the prison system.
If taxpayers are spending 50,000 a year per person, why isn't anyone complaining about that cost
and trying to save that money?

Instead of charging taxpayers more, why not stop the waste of resources that could have
ALREADY paid for health care, education and housing at the rate we are blowing on a failed prison system.

We haven't even looked at other means of funding health care.

Taxing citizens and making people buy insurance are not the only way;
in fact, they take resources AWAY from other programs. Why can't these be the equal choice
and responsibility of taxpayers? To pay for the programs that do the best job and cover
the most people, so naturally the more effective programs will get the most support?

Some of the best medical programs I know of are nonprofit charities, run by
volunteer participation and donations. Nobody has to FORCE people to fund these in order to save lives.

Why can't we model programs after those, so people freely and naturally choose
to fund what works most cost effectively?

I already offer the free spiritual healing programs as a way to cut the costs.
Why can't all methods be freely chosen, based on what is the most cost-effective solution?

If you want to use taxes as an incentive:
Why not give tax breaks for people or groups investing in building sustainable
teaching hospitals and medical training/service programs?

Why punish people for not going along with govt mandated insurance as the only choice?
It's still not covering all the people or all the expenses.
So if other programs are needed anyway, to fill the gaps,
why punish people for investing in other programs that are clearly needed anyway?
Why not REWARD that investment instead of punishing it as "not a choice under ACA."

I am not sure what point you are making. Historically healthcare was the preserve of the rich.
Your health is a lottery in many ways. My view is that if the whole community pays in a little bit then everyone is covered. I dont know if I am going to slip on the ice or get Alzeihmers. Dont know if my neighbour is either. But if we all chip in a bit then we are all covered. How can I sit comfortably in my house when my neighbour is suffering next door. My duty as a Christian is to help him. And his duty is to help me. That is community, that is what binds us together.

Dear Tommy Tainant That's fine, but it still has to be FREE CHOICE
of which groups or programs people want to fund for health care.
Everyone can be covered this way, but it isn't the place or duty of govt to mandate what those choices are.

The same way Christian groups are allowed an exemption for members of
health sharing ministries, why not open the door for ALL groups to have equal freedom
and not be penalized for not choosing one of the options approved by govt.

That's exempting people based on religious affiliation that govt pre-approves,
while penalizing someone who believes in a different way to fund sustainable health care.

That's discriminating by religion and creed.

You've made me think how I would present this as a revision to the ACA mandates.
What I would suggest to lawmakers to minimalize the legislative changes needed
is to create an option in Texas (as a model for others) where the people or groups
who invest in creating a Singlepayer system can get taxbreaks and deduct whatever they
pay under ACA by applying that money (or credit) to the plan they really believe in;
which I would suggest be organized by the Democrats and Greens who seem to have networked
the support for such a program. And for the Republicans and Libertarian types who believe in
Free Market, give tax breaks and allow the mandate to be paid toward or credited toward
a system of reforming the VA to provide health care not just for vets but for the membership under that plan.
If insurance is part of that plan, it remains the choice of that group and its members whether to mandate
it or keep it optional within their plan.

I'd ask the groups with the more liberal beliefs in universal health care as a right to
commit to setting up a more cost-effective prison system of corrections through medical treatment,
diagnostics, therapy, rehabilitation and restitution, and base the state alternative on that system
converted into facilities for providing health care to the general public (probably by integrating
medical education and internships to provide public health services on a sustainable basis).

If the major parties agree to organize their own tracks for state alternatives,
so that taxpayers have a choice of which programs match their beliefs
(in universal care, singlepayer, prochoice or prolife, free market or mandated membership)
perhaps the mandate and exemptions could be revised to include that option,
and let the members of the parties or groups decide the terms for themselves instead of
fighting over what to impose through govt for all people to follow.

so if these two major groups who'd rather fund some other way, besides insurance mandates,
can agree to use their party networks to set up state alternatives, why not give tax breaks,
credits and exemptions for that. And let people choose how to work it out themselves
so it is the most cost effective for their members paying for it, voting and participating in it.

Free choice is a myth where taxation is concerned.There are many things that I dont want my taxes spent on and I try and vote accordingly.Other than that its just tough.There are things that the state should provide that we all use and benefit from. Roads,defence,schools and so on. There shouldnt be an opt out there.
If you get knocked down by a car, anywhere in the UK, an ambulance will pick you up and take you to the local hospital.Trained staff will set your bones,stitch up your wounds and provide he medication you need to get better. It benefits all of us so why should a certain group opt out of that ?

1. Yes, if you really want free choice, that is why the Libertarians Republicans Conservatives and other Constitutionalists are saying that liberty is inherent in human nature, and the point is to limit govt from TAKING and REGULATING that freedom.

the other school of thought is that rights depend politically on govt to protect;
and thus this "myth" that you can depend on govt to protect your free choice.

You just made the argument for why people ARE saying to keep health care out of govt.
Or you are giving up your freedom to the political whim of whoever is in power and can change laws
or refuse to change them where you're stuck for years waiting to elect people who might change them.
Either way it's a disaster expecting federal govt to manage personal and financial health care decisions at the top,
when the people affected are at the local grassroots level, so that's wehre the decision makign should take place.

2. As for emergency care, the argument is whether you can force people IN ADVANCE who haven't
used any services or reneged on any bill to "buy insurance in advance" assuming they won't pay their costs otherwise.

Why not go after the people who use the services if the point is responsibility for paying?

Otherwise, it is a violation of the Constitutional laws
* that nobody should be deprived of liberty without due process of laws
(ie there was no proof that taxpayers have or intend to abuse public resources without paying BEFORE depriving liberty by forcing them to buy insurance, and not even giving people the freedom to pay for the costs themselves, or pay for other ways to provide ER and other services sustainably, but ONLY mandating insurance or a limited number of options regulated by federal govt instead of leaving this to local decisions that citizens CAN participate in democratically BEFORE losing rights)
* and against "involuntary servitude" except as penalty for a crime duly convicted of
by "in effect" forcing people to work and give up that income to a system they didn't agree to pay for or be under,
WITHOUT first being convicted of a crime for which such a penalty is owed.

It is ONE thing if people actually incur costs and you are making people sign a contract that they will pay their costs.
But nowhere in the Constitution is the federal govt authorized to mandate HOW people will pay their health care costs,
much less force them to buy private insurance or be penalized.

Whatever services you say will benefit everyone, public housing, public schools, public health care,
to pay for it, would be a LOCAL decision how to manage the costs and access so there is
"no taxation without representation" and the management and costs remain ACCOUNTABLE to the people
affected and paying for this. If you look at the corruption of public housing and schools, when decisions are made at a higher level AWAY from the taxpayers and families in the actual districts, who are actually paying and affected by school policies, that's where corruption and waste happens because of lack of direct accountability.

So that's where people are arguing not to make health care decisions on a federal level REMOVED
from the local implementation that should be governed LOCALLY to represent the people and taxpayers.

The arguments against ACA is that the FEDERAL govt has no Constitutional authority
and is NOT DESIGNED to manage health care and how to pay for it.

The arguments is that the rights not stated EXPRESSLY in the Constitution
are reserved to the STATES and to the PEOPLE. So the people state by state
should be managing this, not the federal govt in Washington where people don't have direct vote on policies.

The problem with liberals trying to run things through federal govt is that they generally do not teach individuals or groups LOCALLY how to manage, exercise and protect their own Constitutional rights and freedoms; the liberal agenda pushed by the Democrats promotes depending on federal govt and officials to push social programs and benefits so they can get votes.

If the health care programs were resolved on a STATE level (such as the idea of reforming prison budgets)
the President could not use that to run for office on a FEDERAL level.

The political interests in pushing issues up to the FEDERAL level is for power and control in order to have a selling point to get elected.

The people who really want to solve problems sustainably would push to bring those programs
back to the States and people to manage more directly and democratically.

But democratizing the system spreads the power and responsibility unilaterally, shared among the public
and working with all institutions, private and public, to make this work most cost effectively.

This idea of sustainable solutions on a grassroots level is more INDIVIDUALIZED per state and district.
For candidates to prove that works would actually take implementing them.
But they run for office based on simple concepts they can pitch and sell quickly through the media.

People want shortcuts but those are not realistic.
The real work it's going to take is on the state level and organizing resources directly,
not depending on solutions to be mandated from the top down by federal govt.

Tommy Tainant we can keep the hospitals running sustainably
when we have local ownership and responsibility, so no resources are wasted
on corruption,crime and abuse, and the local management has direct interest
and investment in making sure the programs are cost-effective and meeting the local demands.

Again, addressing crime and prisons is a MAJOR source of lost resources I would tackle
in order to save more resources and medical help for the cases that can't be helped.
Crime, prosecution and incarceration CAN be prevented, and thus the costs wasted on these.

Instead of going after taxpayers who happen to make enough money to tap their tax returns,
I would go after the mentally ill and gang members who abuse arms to put people in the
hospital and cost everyone more money. Get rid of that waste, and there will be more
resources freed up to invest in sustainable schools, health and other social services.

Tommy Tainant it's not a matter of rejecting the public hospitals open to everyone,
but arguing how to pay for this without criminalizing or penalizing law abiding citizens who committed no crimes
and haven't refused to pay bills before being forced by federal govt to buy private insurance and lose liberties.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its not perfect but folk memory recalls a time when you needed cash to get the doctor to see you.Many didnt. I am from Wrexham and I read a story about a local woman who died because the Dr would not attend late at night. She still owed him money from her last visit. He went round in the morning but she was dead. Who wants to go back to that barbaric system.
Our Drs have recently been on strike in opposition to the government and have had 100% support from the public.Its likely that the tory war against the Drs will bring them down. Speed the day.

Dear Tommy Tainant to put things in fuller perspective
How many people die of drug or alcholic addiction, suicide or homicide
who could have been saved by Christian spiritual healing that cures the root sickness in abuse/addiction cases.

Yet we would not think to "mandate spiritual healing" through the government to save lives.

People can choose that freely, and there are PLENTY of charities, churches and nonprofits that provide this help FREELY.

So why can't the people who care about this sickness and health so much
be held to the same standards as Christians are who want to save lives.

The missionaries I know can only save so many orphans, and have watched children die due to lack of resources.

Is your solution to use govt to FORCE everyone to pay to save lives through charities?
Where does it end?

Surely we can find a more consistent way to free up resources to cover health care
than to TAX TAXPAYERS by forcing them to buy insurance.

I mentioned before reforming the prison system.
If taxpayers are spending 50,000 a year per person, why isn't anyone complaining about that cost
and trying to save that money?

Instead of charging taxpayers more, why not stop the waste of resources that could have
ALREADY paid for health care, education and housing at the rate we are blowing on a failed prison system.

We haven't even looked at other means of funding health care.

Taxing citizens and making people buy insurance are not the only way;
in fact, they take resources AWAY from other programs. Why can't these be the equal choice
and responsibility of taxpayers? To pay for the programs that do the best job and cover
the most people, so naturally the more effective programs will get the most support?

Some of the best medical programs I know of are nonprofit charities, run by
volunteer participation and donations. Nobody has to FORCE people to fund these in order to save lives.

Why can't we model programs after those, so people freely and naturally choose
to fund what works most cost effectively?

I already offer the free spiritual healing programs as a way to cut the costs.
Why can't all methods be freely chosen, based on what is the most cost-effective solution?

If you want to use taxes as an incentive:
Why not give tax breaks for people or groups investing in building sustainable
teaching hospitals and medical training/service programs?

Why punish people for not going along with govt mandated insurance as the only choice?
It's still not covering all the people or all the expenses.
So if other programs are needed anyway, to fill the gaps,
why punish people for investing in other programs that are clearly needed anyway?
Why not REWARD that investment instead of punishing it as "not a choice under ACA."

I am not sure what point you are making. Historically healthcare was the preserve of the rich.
Your health is a lottery in many ways. My view is that if the whole community pays in a little bit then everyone is covered. I dont know if I am going to slip on the ice or get Alzeihmers. Dont know if my neighbour is either. But if we all chip in a bit then we are all covered. How can I sit comfortably in my house when my neighbour is suffering next door. My duty as a Christian is to help him. And his duty is to help me. That is community, that is what binds us together.

Dear Tommy Tainant That's fine, but it still has to be FREE CHOICE
of which groups or programs people want to fund for health care.
Everyone can be covered this way, but it isn't the place or duty of govt to mandate what those choices are.

The same way Christian groups are allowed an exemption for members of
health sharing ministries, why not open the door for ALL groups to have equal freedom
and not be penalized for not choosing one of the options approved by govt.

That's exempting people based on religious affiliation that govt pre-approves,
while penalizing someone who believes in a different way to fund sustainable health care.

That's discriminating by religion and creed.

You've made me think how I would present this as a revision to the ACA mandates.
What I would suggest to lawmakers to minimalize the legislative changes needed
is to create an option in Texas (as a model for others) where the people or groups
who invest in creating a Singlepayer system can get taxbreaks and deduct whatever they
pay under ACA by applying that money (or credit) to the plan they really believe in;
which I would suggest be organized by the Democrats and Greens who seem to have networked
the support for such a program. And for the Republicans and Libertarian types who believe in
Free Market, give tax breaks and allow the mandate to be paid toward or credited toward
a system of reforming the VA to provide health care not just for vets but for the membership under that plan.
If insurance is part of that plan, it remains the choice of that group and its members whether to mandate
it or keep it optional within their plan.

I'd ask the groups with the more liberal beliefs in universal health care as a right to
commit to setting up a more cost-effective prison system of corrections through medical treatment,
diagnostics, therapy, rehabilitation and restitution, and base the state alternative on that system
converted into facilities for providing health care to the general public (probably by integrating
medical education and internships to provide public health services on a sustainable basis).

If the major parties agree to organize their own tracks for state alternatives,
so that taxpayers have a choice of which programs match their beliefs
(in universal care, singlepayer, prochoice or prolife, free market or mandated membership)
perhaps the mandate and exemptions could be revised to include that option,
and let the members of the parties or groups decide the terms for themselves instead of
fighting over what to impose through govt for all people to follow.

so if these two major groups who'd rather fund some other way, besides insurance mandates,
can agree to use their party networks to set up state alternatives, why not give tax breaks,
credits and exemptions for that. And let people choose how to work it out themselves
so it is the most cost effective for their members paying for it, voting and participating in it.

Free choice is a myth where taxation is concerned.There are many things that I dont want my taxes spent on and I try and vote accordingly.Other than that its just tough.There are things that the state should provide that we all use and benefit from. Roads,defence,schools and so on. There shouldnt be an opt out there.
If you get knocked down by a car, anywhere in the UK, an ambulance will pick you up and take you to the local hospital.Trained staff will set your bones,stitch up your wounds and provide he medication you need to get better. It benefits all of us so why should a certain group opt out of that ?

1. Yes, if you really want free choice, that is why the Libertarians Republicans Conservatives and other Constitutionalists are saying that liberty is inherent in human nature, and the point is to limit govt from TAKING and REGULATING that freedom.

the other school of thought is that rights depend politically on govt to protect;
and thus this "myth" that you can depend on govt to protect your free choice.

You just made the argument for why people ARE saying to keep health care out of govt.
Or you are giving up your freedom to the political whim of whoever is in power and can change laws
or refuse to change them where you're stuck for years waiting to elect people who might change them.
Either way it's a disaster expecting federal govt to manage personal and financial health care decisions at the top,
when the people affected are at the local grassroots level, so that's wehre the decision makign should take place.

2. As for emergency care, the argument is whether you can force people IN ADVANCE who haven't
used any services or reneged on any bill to "buy insurance in advance" assuming they won't pay their costs otherwise.

Why not go after the people who use the services if the point is responsibility for paying?

Otherwise, it is a violation of the Constitutional laws
* that nobody should be deprived of liberty without due process of laws
(ie there was no proof that taxpayers have or intend to abuse public resources without paying BEFORE depriving liberty by forcing them to buy insurance, and not even giving people the freedom to pay for the costs themselves, or pay for other ways to provide ER and other services sustainably, but ONLY mandating insurance or a limited number of options regulated by federal govt instead of leaving this to local decisions that citizens CAN participate in democratically BEFORE losing rights)
* and against "involuntary servitude" except as penalty for a crime duly convicted of
by "in effect" forcing people to work and give up that income to a system they didn't agree to pay for or be under,
WITHOUT first being convicted of a crime for which such a penalty is owed.

It is ONE thing if people actually incur costs and you are making people sign a contract that they will pay their costs.
But nowhere in the Constitution is the federal govt authorized to mandate HOW people will pay their health care costs,
much less force them to buy private insurance or be penalized.

Whatever services you say will benefit everyone, public housing, public schools, public health care,
to pay for it, would be a LOCAL decision how to manage the costs and access so there is
"no taxation without representation" and the management and costs remain ACCOUNTABLE to the people
affected and paying for this. If you look at the corruption of public housing and schools, when decisions are made at a higher level AWAY from the taxpayers and families in the actual districts, who are actually paying and affected by school policies, that's where corruption and waste happens because of lack of direct accountability.

So that's where people are arguing not to make health care decisions on a federal level REMOVED
from the local implementation that should be governed LOCALLY to represent the people and taxpayers.

The arguments against ACA is that the FEDERAL govt has no Constitutional authority
and is NOT DESIGNED to manage health care and how to pay for it.

The arguments is that the rights not stated EXPRESSLY in the Constitution
are reserved to the STATES and to the PEOPLE. So the people state by state
should be managing this, not the federal govt in Washington where people don't have direct vote on policies.

The problem with liberals trying to run things through federal govt is that they generally do not teach individuals or groups LOCALLY how to manage, exercise and protect their own Constitutional rights and freedoms; the liberal agenda pushed by the Democrats promotes depending on federal govt and officials to push social programs and benefits so they can get votes.

If the health care programs were resolved on a STATE level (such as the idea of reforming prison budgets)
the President could not use that to run for office on a FEDERAL level.

The political interests in pushing issues up to the FEDERAL level is for power and control in order to have a selling point to get elected.

The people who really want to solve problems sustainably would push to bring those programs
back to the States and people to manage more directly and democratically.

But democratizing the system spreads the power and responsibility unilaterally, shared among the public
and working with all institutions, private and public, to make this work most cost effectively.

This idea of sustainable solutions on a grassroots level is more INDIVIDUALIZED per state and district.
For candidates to prove that works would actually take implementing them.
But they run for office based on simple concepts they can pitch and sell quickly through the media.

People want shortcuts but those are not realistic.
The real work it's going to take is on the state level and organizing resources directly,
not depending on solutions to be mandated from the top down by federal govt.

Tommy Tainant we can keep the hospitals running sustainably
when we have local ownership and responsibility, so no resources are wasted
on corruption,crime and abuse, and the local management has direct interest
and investment in making sure the programs are cost-effective and meeting the local demands.

Again, addressing crime and prisons is a MAJOR source of lost resources I would tackle
in order to save more resources and medical help for the cases that can't be helped.
Crime, prosecution and incarceration CAN be prevented, and thus the costs wasted on these.

Instead of going after taxpayers who happen to make enough money to tap their tax returns,
I would go after the mentally ill and gang members who abuse arms to put people in the
hospital and cost everyone more money. Get rid of that waste, and there will be more
resources freed up to invest in sustainable schools, health and other social services.

Tommy Tainant it's not a matter of rejecting the public hospitals open to everyone,
but arguing how to pay for this without criminalizing or penalizing law abiding citizens who committed no crimes
and haven't refused to pay bills before being forced by federal govt to buy private insurance and lose liberties.

To penalise people who have had accidents to protect those who havent had accidents........................yet. I am sorry but this is not a Christian position or indeed a position that any member of the human race should take. Beggar my neighbour is not an attractive proposition. If you get run over by somebody tonight then I feel an obligation to help you. After all it could have been me or a member of my family. That is community and that is a shared responsibility.Why should you be allowed to opt out of your Christian duty on bogus moral grounds ?

 

[dblack]

Where would you draw the line though ?

Much more narrowly than you would, it seems. I don't think social responsibility is something government should be enforcing.

 

[dblack]

... If you get run over by somebody tonight then I feel an obligation to help you. After all it could have been me or a member of my family. That is community and that is a shared responsibility.

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

Why should you be allowed to opt out of your Christian duty on bogus moral grounds ?

Perhaps because I'm not a Christian?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Where would you draw the line though ?

Much more narrowly than you would, it seems. I don't think social responsibility is something government should be enforcing.

Begs the question as to who would enforce it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

... If you get run over by somebody tonight then I feel an obligation to help you. After all it could have been me or a member of my family. That is community and that is a shared responsibility.

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

Why should you be allowed to opt out of your Christian duty on bogus moral grounds ?

Perhaps because I'm not a Christian?

Who else is going to look after you ?

 

[Arianrhod]

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

For the same reason you weren't working in a coal mine when you were four years old or eating sausage filled with sawdust.

 

[dblack]

... If you get run over by somebody tonight then I feel an obligation to help you. After all it could have been me or a member of my family. That is community and that is a shared responsibility.

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

Why should you be allowed to opt out of your Christian duty on bogus moral grounds ?

Perhaps because I'm not a Christian?

Who else is going to look after you ?

Family, friends, neighbors - ie community.

Is it inconceivable to you that we could take care of ourselves without resorting to violence?

 

[dblack]

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

For the same reason you weren't working in a coal mine when you were four years old or eating sausage filled with sawdust.

If we were all four years old, you point of view might have merit.

 

[Arianrhod]

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

For the same reason you weren't working in a coal mine when you were four years old or eating sausage filled with sawdust.

If we were all four years old, you point of view might have merit.

That doesn't follow from my post at all.

 

[dblack]

Where would you draw the line though ?

Much more narrowly than you would, it seems. I don't think social responsibility is something government should be enforcing.

Begs the question as to who would enforce it.

The question is whether such a thing should ever be forced in the first place. Morality is a subjective and personal expression. It's not why we have government.

 

[dblack]

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

For the same reason you weren't working in a coal mine when you were four years old or eating sausage filled with sawdust.

If we were all four years old, you point of view might have merit.

That doesn't follow from my post at all.

Of course it does. If it doesn't, reframe your argument using competent adults. Then we'll talk.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Where would you draw the line though ?

Much more narrowly than you would, it seems. I don't think social responsibility is something government should be enforcing.

Begs the question as to who would enforce it.

The question is whether such a thing should ever be forced in the first place. Morality is a subjective and personal expression. It's not why we have government.

Surely we have government to protect us from the bullies ? Otherwise society would just be a jungle.

 

[Arianrhod]

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

For the same reason you weren't working in a coal mine when you were four years old or eating sausage filled with sawdust.

If we were all four years old, you point of view might have merit.

That doesn't follow from my post at all.

Of course it does. If it doesn't, reframe your argument using competent adults. Then we'll talk.

I was framing it in the context of the history of labor in the U.S., but if you're so completely unfamiliar with that history that you didn't even get the reference, I don't know if I can dumb the conversation down to that level.

 

[dblack]

I agree. So why does government need to be involved?

For the same reason you weren't working in a coal mine when you were four years old or eating sausage filled with sawdust.

If we were all four years old, you point of view might have merit.

That doesn't follow from my post at all.

Of course it does. If it doesn't, reframe your argument using competent adults. Then we'll talk.

I was framing it in the context of the history of labor in the U.S., but if you're so completely unfamiliar with that history that you didn't even get the reference, I don't know if I can dumb the conversation down to that level.

Cram your ignorant insults up your ass.

We're discussing whether government should be involved in forcing one's sense of social responsibility on others. Tommy Tainant expressed concerns regarding social responsibility (which I happen to share) and Christian duty (which I don't). It's possible to live up to our social and personal moral convictions without forcing them on others. In fact, it's wrong to pass laws that attempt to do that.

 

[dblack]

Where would you draw the line though ?

Much more narrowly than you would, it seems. I don't think social responsibility is something government should be enforcing.

Begs the question as to who would enforce it.

The question is whether such a thing should ever be forced in the first place. Morality is a subjective and personal expression. It's not why we have government.

Surely we have government to protect us from the bullies ? Otherwise society would just be a jungle.

Absolutely. That's the purpose of government.

In any case, when push comes to shove, I'm not adamantly opposed to social welfare schemes. They can be done in a reasonable fashion. The problem is when these programs concentrate power and wealth in a way that attracts corruption - the kind that plagues NHS, and compromised ACA. That's what I'm really trying to draw attention to here. I'd hope it's something liberals, conservatives, and libertarians could all agree on.

 

[Arianrhod]

We're discussing whether government should be involved in forcing one's sense of social responsibility on others.

Precisely. Can you describe the sense of social responsibility that controlled child labor before the government intervened?

Or since you undoubtedly can't and will probably insist on cleaving narrowly to health-related topics, describe the history of patent medicines vis-a-vis social responsibility prior to government regulation.

Or just pitch a hissy.

 

[dblack]

We're discussing whether government should be involved in forcing one's sense of social responsibility on others.

Precisely. Can you describe the sense of social responsibility that controlled child labor before the government intervened?

Or since you undoubtedly can't and will probably insist on cleaving narrowly to health-related topics, describe the history of patent medicines vis-a-vis social responsibility prior to government regulation.

Or just pitch a hissy.

More with the insults? Got anything else?

 

[Arianrhod]

We're discussing whether government should be involved in forcing one's sense of social responsibility on others.

Precisely. Can you describe the sense of social responsibility that controlled child labor before the government intervened?

Or since you undoubtedly can't and will probably insist on cleaving narrowly to health-related topics, describe the history of patent medicines vis-a-vis social responsibility prior to government regulation.

Or just pitch a hissy.

More with the insults? Got anything else?

Edited for your delicate sensibilities:

Can you describe the sense of social responsibility that controlled child labor before the government intervened?

Can you describe the history of patent medicines vis-a-vis social responsibility prior to government regulation?