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

[emilynghiem]

I think that every single person uses health care.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Life is a guaranteed right.

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

Im talking about using our brains here, thats all.

Yes but unlike murder which is a crime, it is not a crime to run up health care costs from addictive smoking drinking and now pot use. Since we cant have govt regulate all the private choices that can affect health, why should hardworking citizens who take responsibilty get punished by losing rights liberty and income to pay for ppl who didnt watch their costs or who smoked pot till they lost their ability to work.

If we separate by party, then members who believe in spiritual healing to reduce incidence and costs of crime, abuse, addiction, mental or physical illness can require that for people they pay fir under their prolife programs.
While ppl who want freedom to gamble with drugs or wild sex etc. Can be required to pay the mandated insurance and gamble that way.

People want free choice in different areas. So dont mix the two together and they cant complain about how the other half operates, just pay for the system they agree to. And let citizens choose either path that fits with their beliefs so nobodys gets violated or imposed on by govt.

 

[G.T.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is WAY too long winded for a badly thought out idea

Which Doctors are going to Volunteer to service the "volunteer to pay / opt out of the mandate" crowd, and have no guarantee they'll get paid whatsoever? That would be a RETARDED business decision.

I.e. my guess is: zero. Zero doctors.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is WAY too long winded for a badly thought out idea

Which Doctors are going to Volunteer to service the "volunteer to pay / opt out of the mandate" crowd, and have no guarantee they'll get paid whatsoever? That would be a RETARDED business decision.

I.e. my guess is: zero. Zero doctors.

Like Greenbeard pointed out, the doctors still get paid what they ask.
The difference is ppl retain free choice to buy insurance or pay other ways.
Just because they are not mandated by federal govt to pay doesnt mean they dont pay. Where are you getting this?

Just because ppl have free choice to have an abortion, instead of being restricted, you dont think ppl freely choose not to have one?
You are assuming ppl cant be motivated to be responsible unless its required by law- that sounds like the prolife argument that abortion must be banned because ppl cant be trusted to be responsible, or that guns must be banned. This thinking is not open to looking for solutions that do teach and reward ppl for taking financial and legal responsibility. But if we set up separate tiers, so if you have bad credit or dont trust ppl to pay their bills that can be under the mandated system for ppl who want govt to manage it for them. And this can be done by party for all members to agree to pay for that.

And ppl who want to set up teaching hospitals where residents and interns serve the public while earning their education can operate under free market business and charities, and offer free spiritual healing, so that resources can be saved to cover or lend to those who cant pay.

The prison system pays enough to contractsthat this budget can pay for medical and mental treatment instead.

There are ways to cut waste eksewhere in the system to afford to train and pay more doctors and nurses WITHOUT resorting to administrative shortcuts like mandating insurance which takes resources and attention away from the longterm provisions and facilities that actually need to be reformed and developed to serve the entire demand.

Also Al

 

[G.T.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is WAY too long winded for a badly thought out idea

Which Doctors are going to Volunteer to service the "volunteer to pay / opt out of the mandate" crowd, and have no guarantee they'll get paid whatsoever? That would be a RETARDED business decision.

I.e. my guess is: zero. Zero doctors.

Like Greenbeard pointed out, the doctors still get paid what they ask.
The difference is ppl retain free choice to buy insurance or pay other ways.
Just because they are not mandated by federal govt to pay doesnt mean they dont pay. Where are you getting this?

Just because ppl have free choice to have an abortion, instead of being restricted, you dont think ppl freely choose not to have one?
You are assuming ppl cant be motivated to be responsible unless its required by law- that sounds like the prolife argument that abortion must be banned because ppl cant be trusted to be responsible, or that guns must be banned. This thinking is not open to looking for solutions that do teach and reward ppl for taking financial and legal responsibility. But if we set up separate tiers, so if you have bad credit or dont trust ppl to pay

Also Al

Doctors do not deny care.

People without insurance OR funding will encounter the need for healthcare.

This non payment causes the Doctors to raise costs. Less people are then able to pay.

Or.

Doctors only service those within the opposite market (all insured) and are guaranteed their funding.

Dont drop the drool cup, your idea is horrendous and completely MISSES addressing the fundamental issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Mac1958
1. Spiritual healing works, is free and natural safe and consistent with science and medicine. People "refuse to look at it" but keep confusing it with fraudulent faith healing which doesnt work, rejects medicine and is dangerous and nothing alike.

Does that mean this can be imposed anyway. Because ppl "refuse to look at" a solution that is effective and free, which can be proven by science to cure causes of cancer, addiction, abuse, mental physical and criminal illness, things like schizophrenia or rheumatoid arthritis that cannot be cured by medicine alone but have been cured by spiritual healing.

2. Overall forgiving and healing relations, body mind and spirit through Christianity is GOOD for public health, would reduce crime from abuse or addiction so prison resourcescan be saved and redirected to preventative health care, education, and corrective treatment to serve more ppl cost effectively.

But Mac1958 just because this is GOOD for the economy, public health and security does not mean govt has authority to mandate it.

We could mandate that everyone has to work to support their children or dont have them. We could mandate no sex without going through health screening for diseases first.

Are you going to require that everyone who has kids pay into a fund in advance to make sure their education, health care, housing and costs to the public are paid for so there are no freeloaders living off govt?

There is a Constitutional limit on what FEDERAL govt can legislate or not.

Just because YOU BELIEVE it is good does not mean it is in the Constitution. So far you only convince me its a right under FREE EXERCISE of religion to BELIEVe this should be mandatory. So yes, you have the right to pay for health care mandates as your right to exercise your beliefs, but not force on others who can pay for health other ways that dont violate anyones rights. Just like the prolife have their beliefs they would rather pay for, but cant impose by law. Nowhere in the Constotution can you show me that the right to health care as a belief is no more or less protected under law than the right to life. These are BOTH BELIEFS that cannot be legislated by federal govt in violation of the free choice and equal BELIEFS of others. Thats why prochoice cannot be overruled by imposing prolife by laws, because prolife is faith based and so is right to health care. Beliefs remain free choice of individuals by the First Amendment, cannot be mandated by Congress or federal govt, and are equally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights act. Sorry but you Obama Pelosi and Roberts are wrong to pass this off as Constitutional without a Constitutional Amendment or agreement.
The federal govt has no authority by the Constitution to establish one belief over another by exempting one from taxes while penalizing another, which is discriminating by creed.

.

Well, as a guy who is as greedy as anyone else, seems to me that...

... a healthier populace is good economics
... universal preventive & diagnostic services to prevent and/or mitigate long term health issues is good economics
... taking the preposterous health care cost monkey off the backs of American corporations is good economics
... relieving insurers of the massive administration of the more basic forms of care is good economics
... maintaining a competitive and innovative market environment (as we have now with Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage) is good economics

Is anyone going to disagree with the above?

The Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage chassis is already in place and it works.

We currently have six (6) different health care payment systems:

1. Medicare
2. Medicaid
3. VA
   
4. Group Health Insurance
5. Individual Health Insurance
6. Indigent Coverage

Is this not absurd? Really?

A very good system is in place. The ACA was a terribly wasted opportunity by the Democrats, and the GOP refuses to look at what already WORKS.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Healthcare to promote the general welfare must always be better than willful blindness to a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

 

[G.T.]

Spiritual healing cannot be proven to cure cancer.

One peer reviewed study is the smallest scintilla of proof required to even BEGIN to hope thats true.

 

[G.T.]

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

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

Oh right.....passing the costs onto the other customers isnt everyone paying the cost.

Ugj

 

[danielpalos]

How ingenuous can the Right really be if they don't feel the same way about drug laws.

 

[Mac1958]

Hi Mac1958
1. Spiritual healing works, is free and natural safe and consistent with science and medicine. People "refuse to look at it" but keep confusing it with fraudulent faith healing which doesnt work, rejects medicine and is dangerous and nothing alike.

Does that mean this can be imposed anyway. Because ppl "refuse to look at" a solution that is effective and free, which can be proven by science to cure causes of cancer, addiction, abuse, mental physical and criminal illness, things like schizophrenia or rheumatoid arthritis that cannot be cured by medicine alone but have been cured by spiritual healing.

2. Overall forgiving and healing relations, body mind and spirit through Christianity is GOOD for public health, would reduce crime from abuse or addiction so prison resourcescan be saved and redirected to preventative health care, education, and corrective treatment to serve more ppl cost effectively.

But Mac1958 just because this is GOOD for the economy, public health and security does not mean govt has authority to mandate it.

We could mandate that everyone has to work to support their children or dont have them. We could mandate no sex without going through health screening for diseases first.

Are you going to require that everyone who has kids pay into a fund in advance to make sure their education, health care, housing and costs to the public are paid for so there are no freeloaders living off govt?

There is a Constitutional limit on what FEDERAL govt can legislate or not.

Just because YOU BELIEVE it is good does not mean it is in the Constitution. So far you only convince me its a right under FREE EXERCISE of religion to BELIEVe this should be mandatory. So yes, you have the right to pay for health care mandates as your right to exercise your beliefs, but not force on others who can pay for health other ways that dont violate anyones rights. Just like the prolife have their beliefs they would rather pay for, but cant impose by law. Nowhere in the Constotution can you show me that the right to health care as a belief is no more or less protected under law than the right to life. These are BOTH BELIEFS that cannot be legislated by federal govt in violation of the free choice and equal BELIEFS of others. Thats why prochoice cannot be overruled by imposing prolife by laws, because prolife is faith based and so is right to health care. Beliefs remain free choice of individuals by the First Amendment, cannot be mandated by Congress or federal govt, and are equally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights act. Sorry but you Obama Pelosi and Roberts are wrong to pass this off as Constitutional without a Constitutional Amendment or agreement.
The federal govt has no authority by the Constitution to establish one belief over another by exempting one from taxes while penalizing another, which is discriminating by creed.

.

Well, as a guy who is as greedy as anyone else, seems to me that...

... a healthier populace is good economics
... universal preventive & diagnostic services to prevent and/or mitigate long term health issues is good economics
... taking the preposterous health care cost monkey off the backs of American corporations is good economics
... relieving insurers of the massive administration of the more basic forms of care is good economics
... maintaining a competitive and innovative market environment (as we have now with Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage) is good economics

Is anyone going to disagree with the above?

The Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage chassis is already in place and it works.

We currently have six (6) different health care payment systems:

1. Medicare
2. Medicaid
3. VA
   
4. Group Health Insurance
5. Individual Health Insurance
6. Indigent Coverage

Is this not absurd? Really?

A very good system is in place. The ACA was a terribly wasted opportunity by the Democrats, and the GOP refuses to look at what already WORKS.

.

I provided specifics (and I'd be more than happy to get into even more detail) as to what our system currently looks like, what already works, and why specific parts of it would be good in a larger scale.

You're right, the Constitution does not provide for what I would like to see. Nor does it provide for Medicare, Medicaid and VA. My idea on health insurance would be a massive streamlining of what already exists.

I also believe the Constitution does not require the government, or give the government power, to make any effort whatsoever to create any systems that might lead to a better economy.

Based on your post, I assume that you would like to see Medicare, Medicaid and VA eliminated because they're not in the Constitution.

Am I correct?

.

 

[dblack]

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

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

Oh right.....passing the costs onto the other customers isnt everyone paying the cost.

Ugj

Do you understand the distinction? Leaving it up to the hospitals allows them to adjust their policies to meet the demands of consumers. It requires that we face reality rather than sweeping it under the federal carpet.

 

[G.T.]

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

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

Oh right.....passing the costs onto the other customers isnt everyone paying the cost.

Ugj

Do you understand the distinction? Leaving it up to the hospitals allows them to adjust their policies to meet the demands of consumers. It requires that we face reality rather than sweeping it under the federal carpet.

Theyre not consumers, they patients.

Therein lies the crux of this Country's ills right there.

 

[dblack]

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

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

Oh right.....passing the costs onto the other customers isnt everyone paying the cost.

Ugj

Do you understand the distinction? Leaving it up to the hospitals allows them to adjust their policies to meet the demands of consumers. It requires that we face reality rather than sweeping it under the federal carpet.

Theyre not consumers, they patients.

Therein lies the crux of this Country's ills right there.

Patients are consumers.

 

[G.T.]

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

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

Oh right.....passing the costs onto the other customers isnt everyone paying the cost.

Ugj

Do you understand the distinction? Leaving it up to the hospitals allows them to adjust their policies to meet the demands of consumers. It requires that we face reality rather than sweeping it under the federal carpet.

Theyre not consumers, they patients.

Therein lies the crux of this Country's ills right there.

Patients are consumers.

And this needs to be fundamentally changed.

Except for vanity type procedures like an ass tuck.

 

[dblack]

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

Oh right.....passing the costs onto the other customers isnt everyone paying the cost.

Ugj

Do you understand the distinction? Leaving it up to the hospitals allows them to adjust their policies to meet the demands of consumers. It requires that we face reality rather than sweeping it under the federal carpet.

Theyre not consumers, they patients.

Therein lies the crux of this Country's ills right there.

Patients are consumers.

And this needs to be fundamentally changed.

Pretending that health care isn't a commodity is the crux of our nation's problems with health care.

 

[G.T.]

Oh right.....passing the costs onto the other customers isnt everyone paying the cost.

Ugj

Do you understand the distinction? Leaving it up to the hospitals allows them to adjust their policies to meet the demands of consumers. It requires that we face reality rather than sweeping it under the federal carpet.

Theyre not consumers, they patients.

Therein lies the crux of this Country's ills right there.

Patients are consumers.

And this needs to be fundamentally changed.

Pretending that health care isn't a commodity is the crux of our nation's problems with health care.

Did i pretend its not, or call for changing it from BEING?

this site is disturbing.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand the distinction? Leaving it up to the hospitals allows them to adjust their policies to meet the demands of consumers. It requires that we face reality rather than sweeping it under the federal carpet.

Theyre not consumers, they patients.

Therein lies the crux of this Country's ills right there.

Patients are consumers.

And this needs to be fundamentally changed.

Pretending that health care isn't a commodity is the crux of our nation's problems with health care.

Did i pretend its not, or call for changing it from BEING?

this site is disturbing.

The what DO you mean by your comment regarding seeing patients as consumers?

 

[G.T.]

Theyre not consumers, they patients.

Therein lies the crux of this Country's ills right there.

Patients are consumers.

And this needs to be fundamentally changed.

Pretending that health care isn't a commodity is the crux of our nation's problems with health care.

Did i pretend its not, or call for changing it from BEING?

this site is disturbing.

The what DO you mean by your comment regarding seeing patients as consumers?

That they should be seen as ensuring their right to life which is something the Govt is supposed to provide for within its capability.

That means being a consumer has little to do with it. It should not be run like a business. Same as the Military. Its there to protect our most BASIC right.

And the military advances technology and employs, as could the healthcare system.

 

[dblack]

Alright. That's all I was referring to in my post. Most people who make the argument that health care shouldn't be treated like a commodity are, essentially, making the same argument you make here. That it should be seen as a "right" that government should provide for. And I think it's a mistake. It all comes back to the purpose of government, which is central to any discussion of government's role in health care.

 

[G.T.]

Alright. That's all I was referring to in my post. Most people who make the argument that health care shouldn't be treated like a commodity are, essentially, making the same argument you make here. That it should be seen as a "right" that government should provide for. And I think it's a mistake. It all comes back to the purpose of government, which is central to any discussion of government's role in health care.

Youd be hard pressed to convince me in 2015 that the military does more than Doctors do to protect the right to life, its protection an enumerated power of the federal government.