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

[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.

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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

 

[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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

 

[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.

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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

 

[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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Therein lies the crux of the argument.

When johnny poor as dirt times a million seek care and have no insurance, the care becomes more costly for ALL, and ALL cannot afford these exorbitant costs/rates - in effect the costs are OTHER PEOPLE'S faults and PREVENTATIVE to MOST incomes to save one's life when an unfortunate battle occurs.

#1 cause of debt in America is healthcare cost

That is most definitely OTHER PEOPLE restricting the right to life so.........the comparison is an apt one.

 

[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.

.

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?

.

Dear Mac1958
As a Constitutionalist, I find not everyone believes the same things as to what is Constitutional or not,
and I respect these equal political beliefs. I would back up the people who DON'T want health care under federal govt EQUALLY AS THOSE WHO DO, and separate by party so they can both fund what they believe in without conflict. For the VA, I think there is AGREEMENT this is still under the federal govt because it is part of military expenses to take responsibility for Veteran care.
But I would leave it to the actual VETERANS to work out which system works or doesn't work, even if this has to be divided by party if there are different beliefs about it.

I find many Constitutionalists who do not find the federal govt is designed to manage
such complex administrations. Some are so fundamentalist about it, they find it unlawful and fraudulent.
I don't take it that far; I believe since the military is under federal govt, then some of the military hospitals, prisons and campus programs can remain under federal govt. See Earned Amnesty

For comprehensive medical programs that involve local and individual freedoms in health care and financial decisions, I would at least offer people a process of SHIFTING these programs over to medical schools to manage, or to the States or parties to take on and revamp them, rather than just "shut them down" without setting up a transition process first. Even though federal govt should not be in the business of regulating private medical and financial choices, shifting these programs out should be by free choice of the clients, such as shifting them to their party to set up programs by state to take over the administration.

But yes, to answer your question, I would back you up on your statements if that is what you believe,
but NO, I would not agree to impose one set of Constitutional beliefs over another set.

Instead, I suggest people organize by party, so advocates can manage these programs on whatever level is most effective and sustainable, and in according their beliefs, instead of the unchecked mess
we have now because federal govt cannot handle the conflicts.

My only concern is not to take such a hardlined stance that it sounds like cutting these off without planning ahead as to what to shift the current clients and their relations they have with their doctors and admin.

If you just shut these down, that's like evicting and destroying a system without giving an alternative.
So we still need to make sure that any doctor-client relations and records are preserved and not just
pull the plug without considering the consequences and what is required for a smooth transition.

So if I sound hesitant, that's where my concern is coming from.

My friend Vern who is a Veteran, also was talking about shutting down this and that,
and I gave him the same advice -- to consult first with groups that have researched how to make
an effective transition and don't just talk politics and give the nix or axe to things without planning ahead.

Check out the Veterans Party of America that also states plainly that social legislation is unconstitutional.
Maybe that whole party can be enlisted with the process of shifting VA and other services to what would
work better than loading too much on govt.

Mac1958 Thank you for your honesty in replying.
I believe if we can fix the VA and set up sustainable health care and housing for our most disabled and deserving citizens who we can justify govt supporting, then we can next expand on that to serve the rest of the population but using microlending, education or other systems where nobody is freeloading off others, but is taught to be responsible for social costs, as part of the public education system, so there is a check on any abuses.

I would especially ask Veteran govt leaders to focus on this, find a way to reform health care for Vets,
and then apply the best solutions to reform health care, prisons and mental health, public schools and housing for all other sectors of the population where it is sustainable and not a system of unchecked handouts.

So some of the systems would remain under federal govt,
but the conflicting programs may be better shifted to more localized management,
especially by Veterans and medical professionals themselves who have experience in what would work.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Therein lies the crux of the argument.

When johnny poor as dirt times a million seek care and have no insurance, the care becomes more costly for ALL, and ALL cannot afford these exorbitant costs/rates - in effect the costs are OTHER PEOPLE'S faults and PREVENTATIVE to MOST incomes to save one's life when an unfortunate battle occurs.

#1 cause of debt in America is healthcare cost

That is most definitely OTHER PEOPLE restricting the right to life so.........the comparison is an apt one.

Dear G.T.
I don't see how you can take health care costs "out of context" with other things costing our resources.
A. if you look at the trillions spent on military with only a tiny fraction helping veterans with health care
and housing after they become disabled, fixing that mess would free up resources that could change the game.
B. also look at state budgets for prisons
If we pay up to 50K per head per year for someone stuck in prison at our expense,
how much health care could we have paid for with the same resources

How much does crime cost us, in terms of losing a family member to murder and throwing 5 more kids onto welfare, plus the cost of prosecution and incarceration.

Sounds like you didn't even consider this cost part of the equation, but it takes up a good size of the state budgets.

Former Gov. Schwarzenegger complained that the cost of just CA alone incarcerating undocumented nationals from Mexico who weren't even citizens cost the state billions of dollars.

Why aren't you considering that we could have already paid for education, housing and health care
with the amount of money wasted on an unchecked criminal justice and mental health system
that just turns out more sick people and adds to the costs to taxpayers?

Isn't that part of public health also?
If taxpayers are paying for the health care of inmates, but not their own families, isn't that a factor?

 

[emilynghiem]

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. I listed resources I recommend for further medical research studies to prove how this works:
Christian Healing Ministries - Christian Healing Ministries Dr. Francis MacNutt HEALING edition 1999 or later includes RA study
Healing Is Yours Dr. Phillip Goldfedder
My friend Olivia Reiner in Houston has been organizing resources to document her record of healing
of cancer and other diseases, including mental or physical, of many types (diabetes, multiple personalities,
a lot of drug addition and sex abuse issues that require deep spiritual healing to break the cycle of sickness)

http://www.spiritual-healing.us

NOTE: this is NOT the same as any faith-healing or placebo that does not use FORGIVENESS as the key to therapy and natural healing; these methods use deep spiritual and generational healing therapy. So some studies done through Harvard or others did not cover the deep healing processes that are the effective methods. See Scott Peck's books on People of the Lie and Glimpses of the Devil where he observed the healing effects of the deeper spiritual processes that worked to remove demonic voices from schizophrenic patients otherwise deemed incureable.

 

[G.T.]

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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Therein lies the crux of the argument.

When johnny poor as dirt times a million seek care and have no insurance, the care becomes more costly for ALL, and ALL cannot afford these exorbitant costs/rates - in effect the costs are OTHER PEOPLE'S faults and PREVENTATIVE to MOST incomes to save one's life when an unfortunate battle occurs.

#1 cause of debt in America is healthcare cost

That is most definitely OTHER PEOPLE restricting the right to life so.........the comparison is an apt one.

Dear G.T.
I don't see how you can take health care costs "out of context" with other things costing our resources.
A. if you look at the trillions spent on military with only a tiny fraction helping veterans with health care
and housing after they become disabled, fixing that mess would free up resources that could change the game.
B. also look at state budgets for prisons
If we pay up to 50K per head per year for someone stuck in prison at our expense,
how much health care could we have paid for with the same resources

How much does crime cost us, in terms of losing a family member to murder and throwing 5 more kids onto welfare, plus the cost of prosecution and incarceration.

Sounds like you didn't even consider this cost part of the equation, but it takes up a good size of the state budgets.

Former Gov. Schwarzenegger complained that the cost of just CA alone incarcerating undocumented nationals from Mexico who weren't even citizens cost the state billions of dollars.

Why aren't you considering that we could have already paid for education, housing and health care
with the amount of money wasted on an unchecked criminal justice and mental health system
that just turns out more sick people and adds to the costs to taxpayers?

Isn't that part of public health also?
If taxpayers are paying for the health care of inmates, but not their own families, isn't that a factor?

Youre completely missing my point.

Person a says yes, ill voluntarily opt into the government "system."

Person b, your idea is let them pay on their own.

What happens to ALL the person b's who fail to follow through with paying?

The hospital eats the cost, raises prices, and makes less and less person b's possible because its no longer an affordable option.


Wanna know what that system looks like? It was ours, right before the ACA.

 

[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. I listed resources I recommend for further medical research studies to prove how this works:
Christian Healing Ministries - Christian Healing Ministries Dr. Francis MacNutt HEALING edition 1999 or later includes RA study
Healing Is Yours Dr. Phillip Goldfedder
My friend Olivia Reiner in Houston has been organizing resources to document her record of healing
of cancer and other diseases, including mental or physical, of many types (diabetes, multiple personalities,
a lot of drug addition and sex abuse issues that require deep spiritual healing to break the cycle of sickness)

http://www.spiritual-healing.us

NOTE: this is NOT the same as any faith-healing or placebo that does not use FORGIVENESS as the key to therapy and natural healing; these methods use deep spiritual and generational healing therapy. So some studies done through Harvard or others did not cover the deep healing processes that are the effective methods. See Scott Peck's books on People of the Lie and Glimpses of the Devil where he observed the healing effects of the deeper spiritual processes that worked to remove demonic voices from schizophrenic patients otherwise deemed incureable.

I find it complete hogwash untill peer reviewed by the scientific community.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

danielpalos
1. What if you can achieve the same effect or better but with WILLFUL choices?
Isn't that better
2. NOTE: this is the same argument I use when prolife people feel that the life of the child
is MORE important than the free choice of the mother

I argue that these prolife people are CHOOSING to be prolife by CHOICE
NOT BY FORCE OF LAW

Isn't it superior to make the choice by EDUCATION and FREE WILL as they do?
So my argument is you can prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE, and regulating it by law is NOT the only way.

So if that can be done by FREE WILL
why not health care choices in general?

Aren't you contradicting prochoice arguments that people can make responsible decisions on their own
without GOVT FORCING THEM one way or the other.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Therein lies the crux of the argument.

When johnny poor as dirt times a million seek care and have no insurance, the care becomes more costly for ALL, and ALL cannot afford these exorbitant costs/rates - in effect the costs are OTHER PEOPLE'S faults and PREVENTATIVE to MOST incomes to save one's life when an unfortunate battle occurs.

#1 cause of debt in America is healthcare cost

That is most definitely OTHER PEOPLE restricting the right to life so.........the comparison is an apt one.

Dear G.T.
I don't see how you can take health care costs "out of context" with other things costing our resources.
A. if you look at the trillions spent on military with only a tiny fraction helping veterans with health care
and housing after they become disabled, fixing that mess would free up resources that could change the game.
B. also look at state budgets for prisons
If we pay up to 50K per head per year for someone stuck in prison at our expense,
how much health care could we have paid for with the same resources

How much does crime cost us, in terms of losing a family member to murder and throwing 5 more kids onto welfare, plus the cost of prosecution and incarceration.

Sounds like you didn't even consider this cost part of the equation, but it takes up a good size of the state budgets.

Former Gov. Schwarzenegger complained that the cost of just CA alone incarcerating undocumented nationals from Mexico who weren't even citizens cost the state billions of dollars.

Why aren't you considering that we could have already paid for education, housing and health care
with the amount of money wasted on an unchecked criminal justice and mental health system
that just turns out more sick people and adds to the costs to taxpayers?

Isn't that part of public health also?
If taxpayers are paying for the health care of inmates, but not their own families, isn't that a factor?

Youre completely missing my point.

Person a says yes, ill voluntarily opt into the government "system."

Person b, your idea is let them pay on their own.

What happens to ALL the person b's who fail to follow through with paying?

The hospital eats the cost, raises prices, and makes less and less person b's possible because its no longer an affordable option.


Wanna know what that system looks like? It was ours, right before the ACA.

Dear G.T.
The people who agree to the insurance mandates only have to pay for people under that system.

Anyone under the free market system is the responsibility of people who agreed to that system.
So if they would rather pay for hospitals to eat costs, they would rather have that than insurance mandates,
that is for those people to pay for.

I would recommend to mandate spiritual healing for the free market track.
This would reduce costs of crime and disease so much, that yes, we could afford charity cases
because everyone's conditions would be reduced to the bare minimum; and anything preventable
would be eliminated as much as possible.

 

[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.

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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Therein lies the crux of the argument.

Definitely. Using government in this way an abuse of the social contract.

 

[G.T.]

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Therein lies the crux of the argument.

When johnny poor as dirt times a million seek care and have no insurance, the care becomes more costly for ALL, and ALL cannot afford these exorbitant costs/rates - in effect the costs are OTHER PEOPLE'S faults and PREVENTATIVE to MOST incomes to save one's life when an unfortunate battle occurs.

#1 cause of debt in America is healthcare cost

That is most definitely OTHER PEOPLE restricting the right to life so.........the comparison is an apt one.

Dear G.T.
I don't see how you can take health care costs "out of context" with other things costing our resources.
A. if you look at the trillions spent on military with only a tiny fraction helping veterans with health care
and housing after they become disabled, fixing that mess would free up resources that could change the game.
B. also look at state budgets for prisons
If we pay up to 50K per head per year for someone stuck in prison at our expense,
how much health care could we have paid for with the same resources

How much does crime cost us, in terms of losing a family member to murder and throwing 5 more kids onto welfare, plus the cost of prosecution and incarceration.

Sounds like you didn't even consider this cost part of the equation, but it takes up a good size of the state budgets.

Former Gov. Schwarzenegger complained that the cost of just CA alone incarcerating undocumented nationals from Mexico who weren't even citizens cost the state billions of dollars.

Why aren't you considering that we could have already paid for education, housing and health care
with the amount of money wasted on an unchecked criminal justice and mental health system
that just turns out more sick people and adds to the costs to taxpayers?

Isn't that part of public health also?
If taxpayers are paying for the health care of inmates, but not their own families, isn't that a factor?

Youre completely missing my point.

Person a says yes, ill voluntarily opt into the government "system."

Person b, your idea is let them pay on their own.

What happens to ALL the person b's who fail to follow through with paying?

The hospital eats the cost, raises prices, and makes less and less person b's possible because its no longer an affordable option.


Wanna know what that system looks like? It was ours, right before the ACA.

Dear G.T.
The people who agree to the insurance mandates only have to pay for people under that system.

Anyone under the free market system is the responsibility of people who agreed to that system.
So if they would rather pay for hospitals to eat costs, they would rather have that than insurance mandates,
that is for those people to pay for.

I would recommend to mandate spiritual healing for the free market track.
This would reduce costs of crime and disease so much, that yes, we could afford charity cases
because everyone's conditions would be reduced to the bare minimum; and anything preventable
would be eliminated as much as possible.

You have a really bad fundamental understanding of this conversation.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Therein lies the crux of the argument.

When johnny poor as dirt times a million seek care and have no insurance, the care becomes more costly for ALL, and ALL cannot afford these exorbitant costs/rates - in effect the costs are OTHER PEOPLE'S faults and PREVENTATIVE to MOST incomes to save one's life when an unfortunate battle occurs.

#1 cause of debt in America is healthcare cost

That is most definitely OTHER PEOPLE restricting the right to life so.........the comparison is an apt one.

Dear G.T.
I don't see how you can take health care costs "out of context" with other things costing our resources.
A. if you look at the trillions spent on military with only a tiny fraction helping veterans with health care
and housing after they become disabled, fixing that mess would free up resources that could change the game.
B. also look at state budgets for prisons
If we pay up to 50K per head per year for someone stuck in prison at our expense,
how much health care could we have paid for with the same resources

How much does crime cost us, in terms of losing a family member to murder and throwing 5 more kids onto welfare, plus the cost of prosecution and incarceration.

Sounds like you didn't even consider this cost part of the equation, but it takes up a good size of the state budgets.

Former Gov. Schwarzenegger complained that the cost of just CA alone incarcerating undocumented nationals from Mexico who weren't even citizens cost the state billions of dollars.

Why aren't you considering that we could have already paid for education, housing and health care
with the amount of money wasted on an unchecked criminal justice and mental health system
that just turns out more sick people and adds to the costs to taxpayers?

Isn't that part of public health also?
If taxpayers are paying for the health care of inmates, but not their own families, isn't that a factor?

Youre completely missing my point.

Person a says yes, ill voluntarily opt into the government "system."

Person b, your idea is let them pay on their own.

What happens to ALL the person b's who fail to follow through with paying?

The hospital eats the cost, raises prices, and makes less and less person b's possible because its no longer an affordable option.


Wanna know what that system looks like? It was ours, right before the ACA.

Dear G.T.
The people who agree to the insurance mandates only have to pay for people under that system.

Anyone under the free market system is the responsibility of people who agreed to that system.
So if they would rather pay for hospitals to eat costs, they would rather have that than insurance mandates,
that is for those people to pay for.

I would recommend to mandate spiritual healing for the free market track.
This would reduce costs of crime and disease so much, that yes, we could afford charity cases
because everyone's conditions would be reduced to the bare minimum; and anything preventable
would be eliminated as much as possible.

You have a really bad fundamental understanding of this conversation.

Dear G.T.
What I understand is one sector of the population believes in mandating and regulating health care through federal govt
as their way of making it equal.

The other half of the population believes in retaining free market choices so the people make decisions themselves,
and don't rely on govt bureaucracy which ends up dictating decisions centrally. There are many levels to localize it:
through states, through free market through businesses, charities, schools, churches nonprofits, and even by party.

Both sides want to defend their way.

So I suggest dividing it by party so people can organize and set up the system they want.

When Catholics want to teach their own policies through their schools, they fund it and manage the entire
administration, rules and membership, and how to pay for it through THEIR following which is VOLUNTARY.

If you look at the Catholic church, they are organized not only locally, but statewide, nationwide and internationally.
They can connect resources any way they want through their institutions and membership.

As long as they don't ABUSE their organization to commit CRIMES, ie like violating civil or criminal laws by covering up sex abuse that was a criminal violation, they can handle the administrative and financial decisions privately and perfectly legally. All members can be covered under the policy that they commit to and implement themselves and agreed to fund and follow.

Why can't parties organize their members and resources and do the same thing?

If they want it to be equal access for all members, they can write that into the rules and enforce it themselves.

This is the fairest way I know to start the discussion,
by respecting the views equally.

G.T. if you already go into the discussion NEGATING the beliefs of free market as equal to beliefs in govt health care,
you are leaving out half the people from the conversation.

That's not even a conversation but preaching one way, and then forcing the other side on the defensive.

To treat people of different beliefs equally means to start the conversation/mediation
with EQUAL INCLUSION where they both have EQUAL right to exercise their beliefs, not be excluded by the other.

You can also call MY POSITION to be a third wheel.

If I BELIEVE in equal inclusion and protection of BOTH the beliefs in
* freedom of choice in abortion but mandated govt insurance and health care
* free market choice of health but mandates against abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc.
* mediation and consensus (or agreement to separate) so that public policies reflect and protect all views and beliefs
or else people agree to keep their policies private where they disagree and can't set up public policy to include both

Then this is a THIRD approach in addition to the other TWO.

So G.T. any fair and balanced discussion should be open to ALL THREE viewpoints or you just have people projecting their views on each other and not including each other as equally valid points and participants.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

The problem is with your conception of rights. Protecting a right is protecting the freedom to act, not ensuring success. Government protects our right to life by policing those who would take if from us.

Protecting the freedom to act?

By act you mean...live, correct? They are protecting us from would be invasion, takeover and possible death.

The military is protecting the freedom the same way doctors do. Protecting us from takeover*(edit), invasion, and possibly death.

I don't see that as a valid comparison at all. Government protects our rights by preventing other people from violating them, not by empowering us to exercise them. It's not there to provide us with sustenance. Because to do so requires proactive effort. It demands that someone else act to supply us with our needs. This is what the OP is referring to as involuntary servitude. It's what I was referring to with the question of whether it's valid to use government to get what we want from other people.

Dear G.T. and dblack
Only after a CRIME is committed, and someone owes restitution to the victims or society for that crime,
only AFTER DUE PROCESS can they be required to forfeit liberty as restitution for the crime THAT PERSON committed.

But there is nothing in Constitutional law that gives govt the right to deprive ALL CITIZENS of their liberty
for the actions of some WHO CAN BE TRACED -- the people who USE hospital services can be documented
and held to account. This is not impossible, so it does NOT require taxing and mandating rights away from ALL citizens.

Only in EXTREME cases of national security, such as NOT being able to identify terrorists "in advance" has justified the
patriot act threatening the privacy of individual citizens and freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.

But for health care costs, anyone incurring these costs CAN BE identified and held to account for paying WITHOUT punishing all other citizens by trying to impose advance measures that aren't the only way to manage health care.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

JD Powers and Associates survey, customer satisfaction with Obamacare is higher than with employer-based insurance. A lot higher. Why? Choice, primarily.

People who had coverage through Obamacare had an average satisfaction score of 696 (out of 1,000) in 2014, thinking back to their last year of coverage. During that same year, people in mostly employer-based plans had a satisfaction rating of 679—17 points lower. […]

So why would these plans score higher? The J.D. Power survey suggests that there's another variable enrollees think a lot about: choice. Their research also shows that people with employer-sponsored coverage who have "multiple plan options" have the exact same satisfaction rating as the people on Obamacare.

And this might actually circle back to the cost issue. People shopping on Obamacare have the option to decide whether they want a plan with a high premium or a low one. Shoppers have typically gravitated toward the lower-cost premium. The average monthly premium on Healthcare.gov is $374. For people getting coverage at work, the average premium is $464.

 

[Flopper]

The Health Insurance Mandate Is It Involuntary Servitude Marque s Letters
Are insurance mandates a masked form of involuntary servitude?

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance - CSMonitor.com
Can the federal govt make it a crime not to buy insurance?

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1862&context=facpub
Turning Citizens into Subjects: Why the Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

Furthermore, the A group is pushing this belief without any Constitutional Amendment voted on by States or people, whereas the B group believes in Constitutional limits and checks on govt, where an Amendment is required before granting authority to federal govt to manage health care, much less mandate taxes that are going to semi-private insurance instead of paying for public services directly under govt.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Are beliefs really equal, or does the govt have the right to impose one belief over another
by vote of Congress or ruling by Courts?

Isn't this in violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments, or the Civil Rights Act, to
make one creed favored and exempted by govt, while fining and penalizing members of other beliefs?

I am organizing Constitutional arguments about ACA on a forum, along with a petition that ACA is unconstitutional, and needs to be separated by Party, in order to allow equal exercise of beliefs without imposing one over the other through govt.

If you have good links that explain what is wrong with ACA or how to fix it, please post here. Thanks!

Involuntary Servitude is the condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

The insurance mandate may be wrong in your opinion but it's not involuntary servitude because the labor being preformed to pay for the insurance is not for the benefit of another person.

Legal Definition of Involuntary Servitude Peonage

 

[emilynghiem]

JD Powers and Associates survey, customer satisfaction with Obamacare is higher than with employer-based insurance. A lot higher. Why? Choice, primarily.

People who had coverage through Obamacare had an average satisfaction score of 696 (out of 1,000) in 2014, thinking back to their last year of coverage. During that same year, people in mostly employer-based plans had a satisfaction rating of 679—17 points lower. […]

So why would these plans score higher? The J.D. Power survey suggests that there's another variable enrollees think a lot about: choice. Their research also shows that people with employer-sponsored coverage who have "multiple plan options" have the exact same satisfaction rating as the people on Obamacare.

And this might actually circle back to the cost issue. People shopping on Obamacare have the option to decide whether they want a plan with a high premium or a low one. Shoppers have typically gravitated toward the lower-cost premium. The average monthly premium on Healthcare.gov is $374. For people getting coverage at work, the average premium is $464.

Dear TyroneSlothrop
This is great. Shouldn't all citizens have equal right to CHOOSE the public option based on
if they find it works for them.

As a prochoice advocate, I believe people have the right to CHOOSE freely and not be
forced by govt to make decisions they can CHOOSE on their own.

I find that is more consistent with human nature.
Both Conservatives and Liberals agree that govt authority should be for defense of law,
not violating rights. So the issue is not defending certain rights to the point of violating others.

And both sides need to listen to each other when one complains the other is going to far,
so neither defends "certain rights at the expense of others" unless all people AGREE to how the tradeoffs are made.

For example, perhaps in Texas, the citizens opposed to gay marriage might agree to a tradeoff
if all references to God and Christianity are allowed back in schools and public institutions.
So if you are going to implement references to homosexuality through the state,
why not allow references to Christianity to be implemented through the state. They might agree to that compromise.

And for health care,
if one party is pushing to mandate health care, as a requirement to cut costs on the public,
why not let the other party push to mandate spiritual healing as a requirement to cut costs.

And let citizens CHOOSE which way works for them.
Some people don't want to look at how spiritual healing would cut health care costs.
So why force the public option on people either. Why not let citizens choose either path freely,
and let these programs PROVE themselves first, so people can make an educated choice,
and not feel anything based on faith is being forced on them (whether faith in insurance,
Obamacare exchanged, or spiritual healing and charities and teaching hospitals for covering universal care).

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is great. Shouldn't all citizens have equal right to CHOOSE the public option based on
if they find it works for them.

Obamacare exchanged, or spiritual healing and charities and teaching hospitals for covering universal care).

In a perfect and ideal world one can cling to that...in the real world compromises have to be made .... in my youth the Government could require me to report for a physical and go fight a war whether I wanted to or not...that is how WW 2 was fought .the draft....if I want to own a car I have to buy car insurance and a tag ...no options on that.... is this a perfect law...of course not...a process of improving it to address issues should occur...but the OCD panic and throwing Freedom as an argument against it is nuts...we compromise all the time all the time....its how we can live in society ...why do we live in societies...its Superior to going at it alone ...

 

[emilynghiem]

The Health Insurance Mandate Is It Involuntary Servitude Marque s Letters
Are insurance mandates a masked form of involuntary servitude?

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance - CSMonitor.com
Can the federal govt make it a crime not to buy insurance?

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1862&context=facpub
Turning Citizens into Subjects: Why the Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

Furthermore, the A group is pushing this belief without any Constitutional Amendment voted on by States or people, whereas the B group believes in Constitutional limits and checks on govt, where an Amendment is required before granting authority to federal govt to manage health care, much less mandate taxes that are going to semi-private insurance instead of paying for public services directly under govt.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Are beliefs really equal, or does the govt have the right to impose one belief over another
by vote of Congress or ruling by Courts?

Isn't this in violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments, or the Civil Rights Act, to
make one creed favored and exempted by govt, while fining and penalizing members of other beliefs?

I am organizing Constitutional arguments about ACA on a forum, along with a petition that ACA is unconstitutional, and needs to be separated by Party, in order to allow equal exercise of beliefs without imposing one over the other through govt.

If you have good links that explain what is wrong with ACA or how to fix it, please post here. Thanks!

Involuntary Servitude is the condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

The insurance mandate may be wrong in your opinion but it's not involuntary servitude because the labor being preformed to pay for the insurance is not for the benefit of another person.

Legal Definition of Involuntary Servitude Peonage

A. The PENALTY for not having insurance goes into FEDERAL programs,
NOT the program of the person's choice.

So it is TAKING AWAY from the person's ability to invest in other means
by forcing it into the federal public option TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

B. The whole point of the insurance is to pool the money together
TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE. To have the healthy people paying in advance
to pay for people who need help now.

What are you talking about?

The insurance redistributes the money to pay for immediate costs,
while the people who don't need it yet are still required to pay in.

What do you think people are arguing about?

That's the whole complaint about the mandates making the only two choices
A. paying for insurance even if you don't want or need it yet or don't agree to the terms
B. paying a 1 2 3% and up fine into FEDERAL GOVT to pay for the general pool
even if you don't agree with this being mandatory and believe the public option should be VOLUNTARY to participate in

If this bill respected everyone's rights to fund their own health care it would include all other options:
A. exemptions for investing in teaching hospitals, medical programs or other means of providing health care
besides insurance
B. paying for health care directly even if you do or do not use insurance to cover your costs

There is no reason to restrict the exemptions to just insurance only.

This is similar to prolife arguments that just want to ban abortions as the "only way to prevent it"
when there are many ways to prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE instead of relying on govt to restrict the
choice to "prolife only" and restrict any other choice.

Sorry but I find it politically discriminatory and unbalanced in bias
to DEMAND free choice and no govt interference when it comes to abortion,
but turn around and DEMAND that govt regulate health care and penalize free choice!