Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
If you are saying we have to PROVE the alternative plans work before "having the right to fund them" --> THEN WHY ISN'T THIS STANDARD APPLIED TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION?
Just taking this question from your post......
1. There isn't any standard. Well, maybe you could keep your doctor if you like them....or we'll save you 2,500/year (you know when we spend 8,500 per person per year.....left wing math).
2. So you won't get any application. The closest you'll get when you badmouth Obamacare is "You are a racist !".
When you live in a little bubble chanting "$2,500...$8,500" and refuse to accept any information that might challenge that bubble no matter who presents it or from what sources, yes, you're going to be perpetually confused by the fact that people are benefiting from this legislation. The implication is that someone else is paying for your health insurance and you haven't had to think about any of this prior to January 2014, and thinking makes you widdle head hurt.
Dear Arianrhod
It is clear from posts by you and Sun Devil 92
you are both intelligent, aware and fully capable of understanding
and doing the research. The issue is NOT the figures.
Please do not insult each other's intelligence over this,
The issue is CLASHING BELIEFS about the role of govt.
And those beliefs are NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
So quit blaming or thinking it's an intelligence issue.
it's a matter of beliefs, and people have a right to those.
and not to be harassed or forced by govt about those beliefs!
Even if the plans were covered, without flaws, and perfectly balanced,
the ISSUE is NOT GOING THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT FOR HEALTH CARE.
This isn't to be mean and deprive anyone of the CHOICE to do that if they wish.
The PROBLEM is once people depend on GOVT for health care,
then we become DEPENDENT and Enslaved to whatever Govt officials pass.
They no longer answer to us if they control the purse strings on medical care.
This needs to remain in the hands of the people who can CHOOSE
to pay providers and programs that DESERVE our business.
So YES it has to be set up as STABLE as a govt program,
but it has to be by FREE CHOICE so it remains ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
consumers.
It has to do BOTH.
The solution?
A. reform and stop the waste on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that is wasting billions if not trillions of resources needed for health care
B. convert these institutions into MEDICAL SCHOOL programs and clinics to
CREATE more facilities and service providers
Insurance is NOT going to create enough doctors and clinics to serve a growing population that will now access services. The money should be invested THERE: In medical education, training and building more programs to provide cost-effective services for greater populations. Per district where everyone can access, and we don't have the backlogs we have now on county and other levels.
Arianrhod No matter what figures you cite,
that isn't going to change the fact that people
don't believe in going through govt for health care.
This is as WRONGFUL to force people to change their beliefs
for govt mandates as it is to FORCE people to change
from prochoice to prolife
or prolife to prochoice.
You are intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.
I think you can understand the danger, insult, damage and abuse
involved in the improper use of govt to force people into
policies that deny, oppress or conflict with beliefs people have,
that they cannot help, and can't be forced by govt to change.
Please tell me you undestand this concept and how damaging it is.
You DON'T have to agree with prolife or Christian beliefs
to understand it is wrongful for govt to force them on people
or to force policies that violate these beliefs.
Why can't we respect this is going on with beliefs for and against
the Right to health care. Some people do and some people don't.
How is it fair to all to force one policy or the other through govt?
Why isn't it obvious that we need to give and respect free choice of both beliefs?
You elect representatives who, if they're ethical, serve the people they were elected to represent. How would you propose they represent every single individual's "free choice of belief" without invariably running into conflicts?
My belief is that 3% of Americans don't need to own 50% of the guns in America. Your belief may be that every fertilized egg is a person. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the beliefs of those who hold opposing beliefs, or those who aren't certain?
Your great concern with what you believe government shouldn't do does not make clear what you believe government should do. Feel free to expand on that.