Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?

[Kilroy2]

How about taking some of that military money and using for health care

Its better than using it for a wall

 

[SmokeALib]

Who should pay my auto and home insurance?

Someone else!

Hell yeah!
I'm turnin' lib I think I'm turnin' lib I really think so....

 

[Mike Dwight]

I want the doctor to take your picture
So I can look at you from inside as well
PLUS! Chris Hansen meme.

 

[dblack]

Who should pay my auto and home insurance?

Someone else!

Hell yeah!
I'm turnin' lib I think I'm turnin' lib I really think so....

You're learning. You may be ready for the gospel according to democratic socialists.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Libtards Turnin' Japanese Piss me OFF!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about taking some of that military money and using for health care

Its better than using it for a wall

Right. I'm sure that 8 billion would do so much for a project that would cost over 20 trillion.

 

[emilynghiem]

The market decides the prices surely ?

Not when the government manipulates said market with regulation, subsidies and tax incentives.

The NHS subsidises private health in the UK.

Dear Tommy Tainant

"Subsidies" still don't address the issue of best Quality at most cost effective prices and delivery/admin.
In fact it puts a bandaid over the problems so neither side is fixed,
neither the Quality issues or the cost of services and admin is fixed.

You keep citing the UK.
Do you understand the difference in size of population and diverse demographic groups
in the UK vs. the US?

That's like how the EU couldn't manage admin fairly for all the member countries.
Great Britain voted to EXIT the EU because of unfair mismanagement.

This is a pretty close equivalent of TX and CA both arguing they don't want
the demographics of the other State bogging down federal govt and costing other people and states.

You are NOT comparing apples with apples.

The US is an entire CHAIN of stores all serving local populations,
not just one regional farmer's market of fruits and vegetables.

The COOP model is about organizing the LOCAL level to work
SELF SUSTAINABLY, before linking in networks to other coops and all the way up to collective benefits.
But at NO POINT do the local coops give up their resources or autonomy to get 'greater benefits' on a higher collective scale.

it is not "top down" or by force of higher authority imposed on anyone against their will.

If going with larger groups gives greater discount rates,
then members can choose to work in larger groups to access those.
You don't force it on anyone where the numbers don't work and people don't agree to pay the difference.

You reward people for organizing in larger groups.
but the minimum needed to access the basic discount rates
is only 1500. That's the size of a high school or small college campus.

Tommy Tainant it is disinformation and disenfranchising
people to teach that they are powerless unless all Congress or federal govt votes on their benefits.

This is false, and it is UNFAIR to deny people equal empowerment
by knowledge and access to help to form their own cooperative programs.

Since you obviously care for universal access, and you want EVERYONE
to have the same protections and benefits you believe in, don't you want
to set that up on a SUSTAINABLE basis where it doesn't depend on votes and elections?

When people set it up themselves, they control it directly.
So if you really care about universal health care for ALL,
I urge you to commit to learning how the cooperatives work,
so you can help educate and promote the most cost effective solutions
that bypass and prevent all the objections and obstructions we waste political resources fighting.

All those barriers would be removed and dropped
instead of insisting on setting up systems to FAIL
then arguing and fighting politically when people COMPLAIN.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

You can pay for it out of pocket if you wish to. What is to stop you. ?

Dear Tommy Tainant
When Govt is abused, such as ACA mandates that FORCED citizens to pay money to INSURANCE,
that's people's INCOMES and LABOR being forced to pay INSURANCE COMPANIES INSTEAD OF HEALTH CARE.

Also with Govt, if this is FORCED then it isn't "free choice."

Just because you and other liberals consider Govt to be your choice of free choice, doesn't mean it's everyone's idea of free choice.

That's as biased as Govt requiring people to go through Christian churches and charities to get health care. Forcing people to pay taxes into govt for health care 'against their will consent and beliefs' or being forced to pay tax penalties for not buying INSURANCE are not free choice but the opposite. It's forced by law and it doesn't allow free choice of how to pay for health care.

Thats a different issue Emily. My tax money pays for trident bombs which I am totally opposed to. I have no opt out there.
I pay very little for the benefits I get. And I am free to go private if I wish. Nobody in the UK is opposed to paying for the NHS as it is a great deal. No party is standing on an abolish the nhs platform. And there is a reason for that.
Our nightmare is having an American system where the rich are ok and the poor can rot. That is not civilised or acceptable.
The rest of the civilised world agrees with me.

Dear Tommy Tainant
1. Actually if more progressives and libertarians supported the movement to unite these parties
against unauthorized war spending and waste, taxpayers COULD demand restitution and reimbursement.
There is no reason this couldn't be tracked and refunded as CREDITS to apply toward programs
that taxpayers consent to, such as HEALTH CARE.

Just because you didn't bother organizing and asking doesn't mean
you use that as justification to violate the rights and beliefs of others.

That's like you as a crime victim saying well, I never got help to demand financial restitution from the attacker.
So you would justify continuing to BLOCK other crime victims from changing laws to receive restitution?
Just because YOU didn't do anything to ask for compensation
when YOUR rights or beliefs were violated against your consent???

2. As for "nobody complaining about NHS" that's different from one policy for the whole US.
And it's different if all citizens AGREE to SOME medicare benefits being national,
which IS NOT THE SAME as nationalizing ALL HEALTH CARE decisions.

Why are you treating this as all or nothing?
And why are you trying to compare the NHS in ONE country such as UK
to all 50 states under one federal govt.

Tommy Tainant did you have any idea how the federal govt COULD NOT manage
the claims and assistance for just a FEW cities in a FEW states after Harvey and other storms hit several areas.

If the Feds cannot manage claims and support for just a SMALL FRACTION of states and US population,
what makes you think the Federal Govt can handle ALL 400 million
and that is somehow "comparable to the NHS handling UK citizens."

WTF - did you see the complaints about the ONE case of a young boy
forced to separate from parents and die in hospital custody.

So you are saying that cases like that don't count?
That's only ONE case coming out of the UK.

We are talking 50 states, and even the Terri Schiavo case (in Florida) brought national protest (across the entire Country)
against Courts/govt making decisions over life and health instead of the FAMILY DECIDING DEMOCRATICALLY
which they were denied.

Why do you insist that your system works for everyone?
Not even the citizens in the UK agree on govt mandating policies.
And they are the equivalent of ONE STATE among 50 that make up the US.

What makes you think the Federal Govt can manage health care administration
for all 50 states and populations? When we don't even agree on the right to choice
and right to life concerning abortion or right to die. What makes you think we can nationalize
all policies uniformly?

Do you really not believe that other citizens with other beliefs
have equal rights to policies that represent them?

Do you really believe that to retain the ability to get free insulin
1. DEPENDS on violating the rights and beliefs of others by forcing them through federal govt
"as the only solution and way to protect rights to lifesaving treatments"
2. Even AFTER I pointed out that you can get the same access and benefits
by setting up LOCAL coop chapters of 1500 each, so this does NOT REQUIRE
socializing the costs across the entire nation to get those benefits!

Why are you so insistent that federalizing health care is the only way
and people are powerless to set up discounts on any other local scale?

When cooperatives that have been operating successfully for years
have already demonstrated this isn't necessary or true?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's even easier than THAT Tommy Tainant
instead of trying to reinvent the wheel (and fighting and violating rights of millions of people in all 50 states to nationalize health care through federal govt against the beliefs of half the nation)
you can just set up a local coop to handle each community
where NOBODY has to agree with "everyone else" on health care.

They only have to agree with each other like a party already organizes.
With each Party Precinct with 2500-3000 members, you only need 1/3 to form a coop.

And you can take care of Grandma, or Ray From Cleveland
without going through Congress, paying millions to lobby and elect people every few years who may or may not succeed,
but "hoping" to get them to write out "one bill fits all" they can vote and agree on.
None of that is necessary to get the health care you are talking about.

If you want to take care of your neighbors and family,
you can do that without depending on Congress on the entire GOP to agree with you!​

​

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

=============

Dear Tommy Tainant

You can provide this LAWFULLY ie without UNLAWFULLY
forcing anyone to go through govt (unless they prefer and choose to like you,
govt cannot be abused to force anyone else to comply with your beliefs against theirs!).


Why are you making the "irrational leap"
that proving insulin somehow requires making everyone dependent on federal govt?

Where are you getting that idea that's the only way to guarantee access?

If you are so deadset that national health care through govt
is the only way, that's as much a faith based "religion" as
people who have found that Christian healing and rehab is
the ONLY way to save lives from drugs, addictions and crime.

Does saving lives give CHRISTIANS the right to impose their beliefs
on everyone nationwide through federal govt?

If Christians are NOT ALLOWED to abuse govt to force their "life saving"
programs on everyone to fund and follow by federal govt establishing these,
what gives you the right to do that with your beliefs about health care?

????

 

[emilynghiem]

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

I appreciate your support Tommy, but my insulin costs about $125.00 a month. I can swing that. No need for Emily or Black to pay for me.

Dear Tommy Tainant
The cooperative associations also found ways to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals
by 50% or more. Some at cost.

As for insulin costing 125 or even more than that,
I know PLENTY of people who'd rather donate the costs
instead of giving up their freedom by being forced to pay through govt!

Have you even asked for help?

If you have a bias against getting free help from Christian charities
or other nonprofits, how is that justification to force YOUR preferences or bias on everyone else?

That's as bad as someone who doesn't want to get help from Hindu groups
forcing the whole nation to adopt Muslim policies that they believe in using.

Again Tommy Tainant What gives you the special right to impose your beliefs about health care
and establish these "for everyone" through "federal govt" when they have other beliefs and disagree with yours.

Why is your belief an "exception" to the rule against govt establishing religion
and forcing everyone to follow and fund it by rule of law???

If we don't allow people's beliefs in "right to life" imposed by law on everyone who disagrees,
why isn't "right to health care" treated EQUALLY as a free choice to follow and fund?

Isn't it DISCRIMINATION for govt to endorse one party's belief or creed
against the beliefs or creeds of dissenting people and parties?

 

[emilynghiem]

Buy your own insurance. Government helps those with preexisting conditions and catastrophic health conditions.

Better than that. BS Filter the Cooperatives that run as nonprofits
are able to cut the costs of both insurance, eliminate exclusions where preexisting conditions
are not an issues, and only leave to federal govt the federally funded clinics for those who qualify for that.

The catastrophic/stop loss can be obtained at cost
by cooperative discount rates without having to go through govt.

For research and comparison, the best program I have found so far is
www.patientphysiciancoop.com which I am planning to work in partnership
with other nonprofits and party precincts to organize community programs
to solve the problems of health care costs while avoiding conflicts with political beliefs and govt.
This approach can work with any group and any person of any organization regardless of religion or politics.
So it solves more than just problems with health care and economics, but with politics as well that is costing us billions!!!

 

[Mike Dwight]

Amish and Menonites get to community-fund all healthcare and taxes in 1965 because of adamant opinions. Urgh! Amish mean! They're a religious group that pre-exist the Nation! Presbyterians are a religious group that pre-exist the Nation! They believe in adamant opinions changing with time.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

I appreciate your support Tommy, but my insulin costs about $125.00 a month. I can swing that. No need for Emily or Black to pay for me.

Dear Tommy Tainant
The cooperative associations also found ways to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals
by 50% or more. Some at cost.

As for insulin costing 125 or even more than that,
I know PLENTY of people who'd rather donate the costs
instead of giving up their freedom by being forced to pay through govt!

Have you even asked for help?

If you have a bias against getting free help from Christian charities
or other nonprofits, how is that justification to force YOUR preferences or bias on everyone else?

That's as bad as someone who doesn't want to get help from Hindu groups
forcing the whole nation to adopt Muslim policies that they believe in using.

Again Tommy Tainant What gives you the special right to impose your beliefs about health care
and establish these "for everyone" through "federal govt" when they have other beliefs and disagree with yours.

Why is your belief an "exception" to the rule against govt establishing religion
and forcing everyone to follow and fund it by rule of law???

If we don't allow people's beliefs in "right to life" imposed by law on everyone who disagrees,
why isn't "right to health care" treated EQUALLY as a free choice to follow and fund?

Isn't it DISCRIMINATION for govt to endorse one party's belief or creed
against the beliefs or creeds of dissenting people and parties?

Emily, the UK did all that a century ago with friendly societies and tontine societies and so on. The best I can say it was better than nothing. Only a few were covered.

But when the NHS was proposed to the people it was voted for by a landslide. If you ever wonder why Churchill was rejected after the war this is the reason.All 4 of my grandparents voted for it as a chance of a better world. They were right and I am so grateful to them .

There is another thread on here quoting stats that 1 in 4 diabetics in the US cant afford insulin. Its a national disgrace and yet you cant see it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

I appreciate your support Tommy, but my insulin costs about $125.00 a month. I can swing that. No need for Emily or Black to pay for me.

Dear Tommy Tainant
The cooperative associations also found ways to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals
by 50% or more. Some at cost.

As for insulin costing 125 or even more than that,
I know PLENTY of people who'd rather donate the costs
instead of giving up their freedom by being forced to pay through govt!

Have you even asked for help?

If you have a bias against getting free help from Christian charities
or other nonprofits, how is that justification to force YOUR preferences or bias on everyone else?

That's as bad as someone who doesn't want to get help from Hindu groups
forcing the whole nation to adopt Muslim policies that they believe in using.

Again Tommy Tainant What gives you the special right to impose your beliefs about health care
and establish these "for everyone" through "federal govt" when they have other beliefs and disagree with yours.

Why is your belief an "exception" to the rule against govt establishing religion
and forcing everyone to follow and fund it by rule of law???

If we don't allow people's beliefs in "right to life" imposed by law on everyone who disagrees,
why isn't "right to health care" treated EQUALLY as a free choice to follow and fund?

Isn't it DISCRIMINATION for govt to endorse one party's belief or creed
against the beliefs or creeds of dissenting people and parties?

Emily, the UK did all that a century ago with friendly societies and tontine societies and so on. The best I can say it was better than nothing. Only a few were covered.

But when the NHS was proposed to the people it was voted for by a landslide. If you ever wonder why Churchill was rejected after the war this is the reason.All 4 of my grandparents voted for it as a chance of a better world. They were right and I am so grateful to them .

There is another thread on here quoting stats that 1 in 4 diabetics in the US cant afford insulin. Its a national disgrace and yet you cant see it.

1. Tommy Tainant I'm not saying that it isn't a problem with diabetics. I'm saying it's larger than that.
One study showed over 700,000 people a year dying from
medical mistakes.

My point is we can solve a LOT more problems than just access to diabetic care by LOCALIZING health care, which isn't against anyone's beliefs because it remains free choice, instead of forcing nationalization through federal govt that IS against people's beliefs. Thus it is UNLAWFUL to force this through govt.

You are the one that can't see it is unconstitutional and against duty and oath of office. it has to remain free choice because BELIEFS are involved.

2. There is nothing to show the same problems can't be solved another way.

For the part that people CHOOSE and AGREE to manage through federal or state govt, that's FINE as long as people AGREE.

What have you got against people AGREEING what policies to implement through state and federal govt?

That's the real conflict here.

You are saying it should be mandated as the only way to fix the problem.

Do you have any clue that
1. the SAME problems can be fixed OTHER WAYS
besides forcing it through govt?
2. the problems can be fixed BETTER THAN GOVT
by cutting the costs and improving the quality
by organizing it by LOCAL collective pools
so that free choice is preserved?

is the problem Tommy Tainant that you don't
have faith people can CHOOSE to implement solutions
democratically?

You seem to take the case where one country voted on it,
and seem to assume that it should be imposed by federal govt on 50 states just because people in that one case voted to implement their policy and keep it.

Do you understand that's like saying a whole POPULATION of Christians have agreed on practices that have saved lives for free, such as spiritual healing that removes spiritual causes of sickness, disease, abuse, addiction and crime; and it works for them and thousands of people, if not millions across the globe and centuries.

Therefore all other people should agree to Christian practices, that even medical studies have proven to work.

Why are you assuming that this is the only way?
And that govt has the right to dictate that as the
best way to saves lives?

 

[emilynghiem]

Amish and Menonites get to community-fund all healthcare and taxes in 1965 because of adamant opinions. Urgh! Amish mean! They're a religious group that pre-exist the Nation! Presbyterians are a religious group that pre-exist the Nation! They believe in adamant opinions changing with time.

Mike Dwight maybe political parties should follow this model, and organize programs to fund and serve just THEIR MEMBERS under terms they all agree to. Like a political religion, which they are!

If we bar religious organizations from taking their beliefs and forcing those creeds through govt on everyone else to fund and follow by law, shouldn't political parties be treated similarly when it comes to political beliefs?

If we don't allow "right to life" beliefs to be forced through govt for everyone to fund because of differences and free choice in beliefs, why not treat the beliefs in "right to health care" equally? If not, isn't that discrimination by creed to abuse govt to "establish or prohibit" one party's creed over another?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

???

Dear Tommy Tainant
Yes and no. The systems you look at may be voted in and funded by a more homogenous SMALLER population of people, about the size of a small state.

Even ONE state the size of Texas or CA has problems representing and serving its diverse populations.

Are you comparing apples to apples here?

Do you understand that taking one nation at a time, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada etc.
is NOT the same as "trying to mandate global policy for ALL 50 STATES ACROSS AMERICA through ONE CENTRAL authority by Congress/federal govt in DC". Do you understand that
is nowhere near the same in scope and diversity of population that needs its own programs?

Name ONE country the size and diversity of the US that has managed to organize its population under socialized health plans.

The closest I have seen to this IS THE COOPERATIVES that manage the lowest rates and at cost prices for their members.

There's no reason we can't replicate this model to cover an entire city, state and nation by free choice to manage direct relationships.

The PROBLEM with top down management is that the system is built to serve the people running it.

That's why cooperatives are more sustainable and effective by being run by the actual PEOPLE BEING SERVED.

If you take a closer look at the cooperative model, you will find the BEST of the "socialized programs" you are looking for, but MINUS THE WORST DISADVANTAGES.

In a way you are right, there IS a way to adopt the BEST of "socializing medical costs".

But this can be done by free choice to avoid the problems with bureaucracy in top down management that can't serve individual needs (as with smaller groups that can, clustered together to form the LARGER groups serving the greater population that you are looking to serve - we can get there, but not from the "top down" it is more stable working to build from the grassroots up so the patients and people are represented, running the program and "calling the shots").

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

I appreciate your support Tommy, but my insulin costs about $125.00 a month. I can swing that. No need for Emily or Black to pay for me.

Dear Tommy Tainant
The cooperative associations also found ways to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals
by 50% or more. Some at cost.

As for insulin costing 125 or even more than that,
I know PLENTY of people who'd rather donate the costs
instead of giving up their freedom by being forced to pay through govt!

Have you even asked for help?

If you have a bias against getting free help from Christian charities
or other nonprofits, how is that justification to force YOUR preferences or bias on everyone else?

That's as bad as someone who doesn't want to get help from Hindu groups
forcing the whole nation to adopt Muslim policies that they believe in using.

Again Tommy Tainant What gives you the special right to impose your beliefs about health care
and establish these "for everyone" through "federal govt" when they have other beliefs and disagree with yours.

Why is your belief an "exception" to the rule against govt establishing religion
and forcing everyone to follow and fund it by rule of law???

If we don't allow people's beliefs in "right to life" imposed by law on everyone who disagrees,
why isn't "right to health care" treated EQUALLY as a free choice to follow and fund?

Isn't it DISCRIMINATION for govt to endorse one party's belief or creed
against the beliefs or creeds of dissenting people and parties?

Emily, the UK did all that a century ago with friendly societies and tontine societies and so on. The best I can say it was better than nothing. Only a few were covered.

But when the NHS was proposed to the people it was voted for by a landslide. If you ever wonder why Churchill was rejected after the war this is the reason.All 4 of my grandparents voted for it as a chance of a better world. They were right and I am so grateful to them .

There is another thread on here quoting stats that 1 in 4 diabetics in the US cant afford insulin. Its a national disgrace and yet you cant see it.

1. Tommy Tainant I'm not saying that it isn't a problem with diabetics. I'm saying it's larger than that.
One study showed over 700,000 people a year dying from
medical mistakes.

My point is we can solve a LOT more problems than just access to diabetic care by LOCALIZING health care, which isn't against anyone's beliefs because it remains free choice, instead of forcing nationalization through federal govt that IS against people's beliefs. Thus it is UNLAWFUL to force this through govt.

You are the one that can't see it is unconstitutional and against duty and oath of office. it has to remain free choice because BELIEFS are involved.

2. There is nothing to show the same problems can't be solved another way.

For the part that people CHOOSE and AGREE to manage through federal or state govt, that's FINE as long as people AGREE.

What have you got against people AGREEING what policies to implement through state and federal govt?

That's the real conflict here.

You are saying it should be mandated as the only way to fix the problem.

Do you have any clue that
1. the SAME problems can be fixed OTHER WAYS
besides forcing it through govt?
2. the problems can be fixed BETTER THAN GOVT
by cutting the costs and improving the quality
by organizing it by LOCAL collective pools
so that free choice is preserved?

is the problem Tommy Tainant that you don't
have faith people can CHOOSE to implement solutions
democratically?

You seem to take the case where one country voted on it,
and seem to assume that it should be imposed by federal govt on 50 states just because people in that one case voted to implement their policy and keep it.

Do you understand that's like saying a whole POPULATION of Christians have agreed on practices that have saved lives for free, such as spiritual healing that removes spiritual causes of sickness, disease, abuse, addiction and crime; and it works for them and thousands of people, if not millions across the globe and centuries.

Therefore all other people should agree to Christian practices, that even medical studies have proven to work.

Why are you assuming that this is the only way?
And that govt has the right to dictate that as the
best way to saves lives?

Pretty much all of western europe does it our way. Big pharma prevents you from doing so.

 

[Jitss617]

Every working age person pays 30$ a week! The ones that can’t afford it, and if can prove they can’t pay for it. Goes In to a pool,, where Democrats can prove they care for people.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you put a man on the moon and gave us Elvis. You can give Ray some insulin. It isnt complicated.

I appreciate your support Tommy, but my insulin costs about $125.00 a month. I can swing that. No need for Emily or Black to pay for me.

Dear Tommy Tainant
The cooperative associations also found ways to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals
by 50% or more. Some at cost.

As for insulin costing 125 or even more than that,
I know PLENTY of people who'd rather donate the costs
instead of giving up their freedom by being forced to pay through govt!

Have you even asked for help?

If you have a bias against getting free help from Christian charities
or other nonprofits, how is that justification to force YOUR preferences or bias on everyone else?

That's as bad as someone who doesn't want to get help from Hindu groups
forcing the whole nation to adopt Muslim policies that they believe in using.

Again Tommy Tainant What gives you the special right to impose your beliefs about health care
and establish these "for everyone" through "federal govt" when they have other beliefs and disagree with yours.

Why is your belief an "exception" to the rule against govt establishing religion
and forcing everyone to follow and fund it by rule of law???

If we don't allow people's beliefs in "right to life" imposed by law on everyone who disagrees,
why isn't "right to health care" treated EQUALLY as a free choice to follow and fund?

Isn't it DISCRIMINATION for govt to endorse one party's belief or creed
against the beliefs or creeds of dissenting people and parties?

Emily, the UK did all that a century ago with friendly societies and tontine societies and so on. The best I can say it was better than nothing. Only a few were covered.

But when the NHS was proposed to the people it was voted for by a landslide. If you ever wonder why Churchill was rejected after the war this is the reason.All 4 of my grandparents voted for it as a chance of a better world. They were right and I am so grateful to them .

There is another thread on here quoting stats that 1 in 4 diabetics in the US cant afford insulin. Its a national disgrace and yet you cant see it.

1. Tommy Tainant I'm not saying that it isn't a problem with diabetics. I'm saying it's larger than that.
One study showed over 700,000 people a year dying from
medical mistakes.

My point is we can solve a LOT more problems than just access to diabetic care by LOCALIZING health care, which isn't against anyone's beliefs because it remains free choice, instead of forcing nationalization through federal govt that IS against people's beliefs. Thus it is UNLAWFUL to force this through govt.

You are the one that can't see it is unconstitutional and against duty and oath of office. it has to remain free choice because BELIEFS are involved.

2. There is nothing to show the same problems can't be solved another way.

For the part that people CHOOSE and AGREE to manage through federal or state govt, that's FINE as long as people AGREE.

What have you got against people AGREEING what policies to implement through state and federal govt?

That's the real conflict here.

You are saying it should be mandated as the only way to fix the problem.

Do you have any clue that
1. the SAME problems can be fixed OTHER WAYS
besides forcing it through govt?
2. the problems can be fixed BETTER THAN GOVT
by cutting the costs and improving the quality
by organizing it by LOCAL collective pools
so that free choice is preserved?

is the problem Tommy Tainant that you don't
have faith people can CHOOSE to implement solutions
democratically?

You seem to take the case where one country voted on it,
and seem to assume that it should be imposed by federal govt on 50 states just because people in that one case voted to implement their policy and keep it.

Do you understand that's like saying a whole POPULATION of Christians have agreed on practices that have saved lives for free, such as spiritual healing that removes spiritual causes of sickness, disease, abuse, addiction and crime; and it works for them and thousands of people, if not millions across the globe and centuries.

Therefore all other people should agree to Christian practices, that even medical studies have proven to work.

Why are you assuming that this is the only way?
And that govt has the right to dictate that as the
best way to saves lives?

Pretty much all of western europe does it our way. Big pharma prevents you from doing so.

Dear Tommy Tainant
1. Again, all the nations in Europe decide independently and don't mandate "one policy funded by all" through the EU for all nations.

The equivalent is for individual STATES to decide their own policies, not putting them all under one policy through federal government!

Do you get this first point, and the difference it makes to compare the same size populations and diverse demographics?

Or do you still think it is a fair comparison to compare each nation in Europe with the whole of the US as "one country."
Really? is this where we are disagreeing

2. As for Big Pharma, the cooperatives have been able to access the licensing necessary to negotiate rates and discounts. Once more of the population organizes this way to save 50% of their money to invest themselves, the money and capital saved (and est. 5-10 million per chapter of 1500 people managing their own resources) then we can afford to
* support our own medical education and research
* leverage the R&D into drugs or alternatives to them
* such as researching Spiritual Healing that is natural and free, and thus has NO side effects or costs as with pharmaceuticals

Tommy Tainant if you are SERIOUS about ending the monopoly and profits of "big pharm" interests, you would have already researched Spiritual Healing by now.

You seem more concerned with politics than with finding and promoting real cures. Spiritual Healing is one of them that revolutionizes medical and mental health care, as well as criminal justice reform that also exhausts billions in resources that could be invested in preventative care.

Sources: www.christianhealingmin.org
www.healingisyours.com
HEALING by Dr. Francis MacNutt (1999 edition or later)

Thousands of people per ministry like Dr. MacNutt's have experienced free healing that ended their need for medications. So this solves the problem by addressing the root causes of disease, instead of just placating symptoms which pharmaceuticals profit from without curing the disease.

 

[emilynghiem]

So can you. So can anyone who wants to. But that's not the question. The question is whether government should.

dblack and Tommy Tainant
And if people don't believe the same, and don't agree when or how government "should" -- shouldn't we respect the laws that protect the free choice and beliefs of people from govt establishing or prohibiting those? Shouldn't this remain free choice depending what people believe they want done through govt or not?

 

[Darkwind]

Given Beliefs being argued that Health Care is a Right,
who should pay for it?

1. It is a Church Duty: The Churches/religions have a duty as part of charity they preach and teach
2. It is Govt Duty to provide: The Govt has the duty to protect public health and safety and promote general welfare
3. It is Govt Duty to remain neutral - The Govt should protect the right of people to practice this belief, but not establish it.
(ie not violate due process, equal beliefs and liberty/free choice of others who may not share this belief it is a right, or may believe in Constitutional limits on govt that would be violated by federal management of health care choices)
4. It is up to Free Choice: People have free choice to believe and pay for health care as they wish
5. States should manage this democratically to protect public health
6. Parties that advocate Health Care as a Right should provide for their members
7. Companies or Organizations should provide for their Workers or Members
8. Combination of the above or Other (please specify)

I can't participate. The correct answer "The individual" isn't an option.

BTW....healthcare is NOT a right. No one has a right to another's labor.