No One Has a Right to Health Care

[beagle9]

But what if the nation decided - as a nation - to grant it as a right to everyone?
And agreed to fund it from the general fund?

What I'm saying before we get further into the weeds of ridiculousness is that there's no immutable law of nature...as far as I'm aware...to say that a nation of citizens can't grant themselves any right they choose to.

If the requisite procedures were followed what would stop the US from deciding that everyone of its citizens has the right to healthcare paid for from the general fund?

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

. How are we broke, when we have more natural resources to back our currency than imaginable. We are the richest nation in the world, with some of the best climates in the world, but we're broke ? Man likes to build fences around money, and then they charge everyone to stay inside the fence. Yet just outside the fence there is a super wealth of natural resources to back this countries wealth or currency for another 200 years or more. Are we being lied to about the potential of this nation by control freaks?

What natural sources are we talking about here? You don't back currency with natural resources. We are in debt, and I defy you to find me anything on the internet that states otherwise.

. Why don't we back our currency with our natural resources Ray ? Are natural resources valuable or not ? They are what fuels a nations economy, makes it move. Now what Trump is talking about with China and such is right, and that is a man made disaster where we have been idiots with our trade policies.

 

[beagle9]

. Then it could tax all it's citizens from their incomes for around $5.00 dollars a week to be deducted from what ever income they would receive in the nation. Anyone who would cry over that kind of rate for a basic healthcare insurance to be offered by the government to every man woman and child in the nation as a basic right, would flat out amaze me.

Except for the fact you are pulling numbers out of the air. I don't care what you do, unless you make all medical professionals work for minimum wage, you can't get healthcare for five bucks a week. Where did you get that number anyway?

Right now working Americans pay much more for that for just Medicare. Not only is Medicare going broke, but they too can't keep up with the medical bills so they've been underpaying the providers by about 1/3 of what they charge. Medicaid has many states in the red regardless of how many billions they pay into the program, and they too are cheating providers.

Remember too that private insurance takes your premiums and invests that money so the profits offset some of the costs. Government doesn't do that. Government puts your money under a mattress somewhere where it doesn't earn a dime of interest, and they use it as needed. Unlike insurance companies that have detectives overseeing fraud, our government doesn't have anything like that which is why programs are ripped off by the billions every single year.

$5.00 dollars a week is what the deduction would be for each citizen covered.. It has nothing to do with what the private sector or market place does or charges. The $5.00 dollars taken in from 300.000.000.00 citizens, is 1.500.000.000.00 dollars a week. Now many citizens go years as healthy like me, and are in no need of the care, so it takes the pressure off of the burdon of cost that is found within the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. A plan like this is affordable and would work.

Your figures are way off. You are talking about every man, woman and child putting in this money. Well bad news, we now have over 93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. Then we have to consider the disabled and the elderly. We have to consider the children. There are not that many working adults to put into your program.

It is no different than your sales tax idea, because regardless do you think that people don't have an income if they don't have a job ? They have an income whether it is workman's comp, disability, SSI, or something. If people don't have an income of some sort, then how do they survive ? Anyone could afford $5.00 dollars a week, anyone. Kids are free.

Why should only the working pay for it? And no, it's never going to be five bucks a week. Fifty? Perhaps, but not five.

. Fear mongering Ray ?

 

[beagle9]

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

How did any of the amendments to the constitution get passed then?
Such as the second for example...I wonder if it had 100% approval?

Begging the question. None of the amendments to the Constitution authorized taking money from one person and giving it to another. So your question is irrelevant to the point I made.

A question. So if people elect government, so to you anything government decides they can do was authorized by the people, then why did we bother to have a Constitution in the first place? What can't they do? Abortion? Our whole Constitution was in the end only to prevent government from banning abortions?

. Making healthcare a right is not this boogyman transference of wealth from one to another. Fear mongering much ?

 

[beagle9]

If the US collectively want to decide to extend certain rights to US citizens then they can can't they?
Isn't that what the constitution did?

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

. Most would agree to a common sense plan for insuring all, but even that is fought by the donor class who actually denies the people their right to due process on such matters.

It's common sense to give people shit for doing nothing? Is that your philosophy with your kids or do you think that doing nothing for money is actually a bad idea?

How do people do getting off welfare when they get on it? Do you know? Do you care?

. Why mix one issue with another here ? Is this what happens where nothing gets done ever anymore for the people ? Is it a tactic ?

 

[kaz]

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

How did any of the amendments to the constitution get passed then?
Such as the second for example...I wonder if it had 100% approval?

Begging the question. None of the amendments to the Constitution authorized taking money from one person and giving it to another. So your question is irrelevant to the point I made.

A question. So if people elect government, so to you anything government decides they can do was authorized by the people, then why did we bother to have a Constitution in the first place? What can't they do? Abortion? Our whole Constitution was in the end only to prevent government from banning abortions?

. Making healthcare a right is not this boogyman transference of wealth from one to another. Fear mongering much ?

Of course it is. You give people things other people paid for. that is the definition of welfare

 

[kaz]

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

. Most would agree to a common sense plan for insuring all, but even that is fought by the donor class who actually denies the people their right to due process on such matters.

It's common sense to give people shit for doing nothing? Is that your philosophy with your kids or do you think that doing nothing for money is actually a bad idea?

How do people do getting off welfare when they get on it? Do you know? Do you care?

. Why mix one issue with another here ? Is this what happens where nothing gets done ever anymore for the people ? Is it a tactic ?

So you don't see the connection between connecting work and money with your kids and connecting work and money with adults? Seriously?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Should all veterans have health care?

No!

Just the ones who lived.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

But if you stop and think about it , why wouldn't you want all of the members of your civilized society to have affordable healthcare?

I DO want that! But I don't think my desires justify violence. That's the difference. Those of you who want to use government to solve these kinds of problems aren't satisfied with working voluntarily, alongside those who agree with you, toward such worthwhile goals. You want to use government to force others to comply with your idea of the best solution.

I want poor people to be able to send their kids to the doctor the same as they would send their kids to school...

...the kids wouldn't come home to tell their parents they were turned away because they couldn't pay.

Let me fix that for you...

The kids wouldn't come home to tell their parents they were turned away because their parents didn't pay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the "collectively want to decide" bit that contains the poison. What you mean by that, is that the majority can force the minority to bend to its will via government. And, yes, that's how government works. But it's not inherently just, and we created the Constitution to contain it - to prevent the majority from abusing minorities willy nilly.

So, you think that nothing should be enshrined as a right unless 100% of the population agrees with it.
That's a high hurdle.

Government should not be able to trod on the rights of some citizens for the benefit of others unless it's 100% agreed

How did any of the amendments to the constitution get passed then?
Such as the second for example...I wonder if it had 100% approval?

Begging the question. None of the amendments to the Constitution authorized taking money from one person and giving it to another. So your question is irrelevant to the point I made.

A question. So if people elect government, so to you anything government decides they can do was authorized by the people, then why did we bother to have a Constitution in the first place? What can't they do? Abortion? Our whole Constitution was in the end only to prevent government from banning abortions?

. Making healthcare a right is not this boogyman transference of wealth from one to another. Fear mongering much ?

Sure it is when you force people to pay for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except for the fact you are pulling numbers out of the air. I don't care what you do, unless you make all medical professionals work for minimum wage, you can't get healthcare for five bucks a week. Where did you get that number anyway?

Right now working Americans pay much more for that for just Medicare. Not only is Medicare going broke, but they too can't keep up with the medical bills so they've been underpaying the providers by about 1/3 of what they charge. Medicaid has many states in the red regardless of how many billions they pay into the program, and they too are cheating providers.

Remember too that private insurance takes your premiums and invests that money so the profits offset some of the costs. Government doesn't do that. Government puts your money under a mattress somewhere where it doesn't earn a dime of interest, and they use it as needed. Unlike insurance companies that have detectives overseeing fraud, our government doesn't have anything like that which is why programs are ripped off by the billions every single year.

$5.00 dollars a week is what the deduction would be for each citizen covered.. It has nothing to do with what the private sector or market place does or charges. The $5.00 dollars taken in from 300.000.000.00 citizens, is 1.500.000.000.00 dollars a week. Now many citizens go years as healthy like me, and are in no need of the care, so it takes the pressure off of the burdon of cost that is found within the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. A plan like this is affordable and would work.

Your figures are way off. You are talking about every man, woman and child putting in this money. Well bad news, we now have over 93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. Then we have to consider the disabled and the elderly. We have to consider the children. There are not that many working adults to put into your program.

It is no different than your sales tax idea, because regardless do you think that people don't have an income if they don't have a job ? They have an income whether it is workman's comp, disability, SSI, or something. If people don't have an income of some sort, then how do they survive ? Anyone could afford $5.00 dollars a week, anyone. Kids are free.

Why should only the working pay for it? And no, it's never going to be five bucks a week. Fifty? Perhaps, but not five.

. Fear mongering Ray ?

No, it's not fear mongering, it's reality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What general fund do you speak of? We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing. Instead of discussing how we can possibly repay this debt, we are talking about spending even more and digging ourselves even deeper.

Like I said, once you involve government in our healthcare, it becomes politicized. That means it will be used as a tool for elections and reelections.

And I just want to reiterate that if people (as a huge majority) want this healthcare that you speak of, fine with me. I'm willing to go along with the majority, but we all have to pay for it.

That's why I suggested a consumption tax. We all pay for the care. It doesn't matter whether you're a millionaire, a prostitute, a drug dealer, a carpenter, everybody pays with a consumption tax, the poor, the middle-class, the well to do.

I say 20 cents on every dollar should do it. There would be no class warfare to speak of. The more you buy and the more expensive things you buy, the more you pay into the system.

That's fair.

I use 'general fund' as shorthand for funds derived from taxation or other levies.

Then you are talking about the federal budge which Congress makes out. They don't have enough money now to pay for the things we already have. Where are they going to come up with more?

You do realize that a deficit is the difference between the money coming in and the money going out, don't you? Well we have a deficit and have for a long time. We are spending much more than we take in.

We are broke. What does broke mean? Broke means no money. Broke means in debt. Broke means failure. I can't understand how people could support even more failure.

. How are we broke, when we have more natural resources to back our currency than imaginable. We are the richest nation in the world, with some of the best climates in the world, but we're broke ? Man likes to build fences around money, and then they charge everyone to stay inside the fence. Yet just outside the fence there is a super wealth of natural resources to back this countries wealth or currency for another 200 years or more. Are we being lied to about the potential of this nation by control freaks?

What natural sources are we talking about here? You don't back currency with natural resources. We are in debt, and I defy you to find me anything on the internet that states otherwise.

. Why don't we back our currency with our natural resources Ray ? Are natural resources valuable or not ? They are what fuels a nations economy, makes it move. Now what Trump is talking about with China and such is right, and that is a man made disaster where we have been idiots with our trade policies.

What natural resources are you talking about? Backing up our currency only means having the ability to repay in the event you can't use currency. It's like when you take out a second mortgage. You use your house as your collateral.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

But if you stop and think about it , why wouldn't you want all of the members of your civilized society to have affordable healthcare?

I DO want that! But I don't think my desires justify violence. That's the difference. Those of you who want to use government to solve these kinds of problems aren't satisfied with working voluntarily, alongside those who agree with you, toward such worthwhile goals. You want to use government to force others to comply with your idea of the best solution.

I want poor people to be able to send their kids to the doctor the same as they would send their kids to school...

...the kids wouldn't come home to tell their parents they were turned away because they couldn't pay.

when you say poor people send their kids to the doctor just like they send them to school,,
are you saying you want the kids to pretend they are going to the doctor, then hang out in the streets all day doing drugs and stealing stuff, and the parents never know they didnt go to the doctor because they have no interest in the kids?
because if they really are so poor that they cant afford insurance for health, there is this thing called medicaid that pretty much covers this issue already?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the slippery slope is proven correct, why not use it?

I remember the days when environmentalist only wanted lead out of paint and gasoline. Look at us today.

I remember the days when non-smokers only wanted to prohibit smoking in movie theaters. Today, you can't even smoke outside in some places and inside in many public places.

I remember the days when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. That's all, just let us out of the closet, and we'll be happy. Today, states are forced into recognizing gay marriage against the will of the people. A baker can't even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding.

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

The Constitution makes no mention of sexuality, marriage, pollution or bad habits. What Constitutional rights are you talking about?

The ones that homo-sexuals have under the constitution - as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Yes, which is political and not constitutional.

But regardless of what the SC ruled, you cannot dismiss that issues are on a slippery slope. If we continue down this road that healthcare is a right, then nothing is excluded from being a right.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Why does it matter?
If it's collectively agreed on...isn't that democracy?

Yes it is, and if we lived in a Democracy, you might have a point even at a long shot. But we live in a Republic.

 

[beagle9]

I'm sure they actually wanted their constitutionally guaranteed rights...all of them, not just a few.
That's not a slippery slope.

The Constitution makes no mention of sexuality, marriage, pollution or bad habits. What Constitutional rights are you talking about?

The ones that homo-sexuals have under the constitution - as confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Yes, which is political and not constitutional.

But regardless of what the SC ruled, you cannot dismiss that issues are on a slippery slope. If we continue down this road that healthcare is a right, then nothing is excluded from being a right.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Why does it matter?
If it's collectively agreed on...isn't that democracy?

Yes it is, and if we lived in a Democracy, you might have a point even at a long shot. But we live in a Republic.

. Funny how it covienantly swaps back and forth. Just depends who it benefits when the key is turned.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The irony that you don't like Republicans owning your body, then you want government ... to own your body. Government decides what and how much healthcare you get. Wow, nuts

. Another misleading statement about my ideas. Government doesn't decide anything, because we would have the power to decide for ourselves where we use our healthcare card issued us. The taxes are deducted just like SS is from our income.

It shouldn't be (with an American pool so large), no more than around $8.00 dollars a week deduction or less would be the amount deducted. Then when we use the healthcare card at the legitimate places of our choice, it then spurs the market into competitions for us... This is a great thing. We all win. The government just handles our accounts and cards issued us. They don't dictate anything to us, and the market will respond to us in kind if we have that kind of power invested in us.

So when government controls our health plans and decides what procedures they cover and what they pay, that isn't government "deciding anything."

Um ... I don't get it. What's the punch line?

. No, we would be the deciders not the government in my idea. The government taxed insurance coverage would be a great basic coverage for us all to have, and then if we wanted extra coverage for things like cosmetic and/or supplemental insurance coverage, then we could purchase that as an extra insurance also. The main thing is to have a basic foundational insurance coverage in which we all can rely upon. Better yet if we pay the tax for years and years, and we use only a fraction of it in our life times, then the value of our indivdual plan in percentage of, can be rolled over to increase the retirement side of life say after age 65. This should give the incentive to use the plan wisely.

So you actually believe that when government decides what doctors you can see, what they can charge, what government pays and what you have to pay, and if you don't see those doctors you are on your own, you have free choice.

Just curious, were you the product of a still birth?

. No, and you see these are things in which you and others believe and do know, but my plan is based upon an entirely different government. It will only work if the government is changed. Then the plan I submit would be great, because it will ensure that every American has a basic healthcare insurance policy. The terms of the service would be laid out in the plan. Anyone wanting more than the plan covers, will have to purchase added coverage in the market place. The basic coverage that will be issued all Americans with a card to use, will be affordable due the entire nation participating in it. There would be no need to not want it, because the cost of it will be miniscule. The government would yes list the legit service providers it would honor, and yet it would not refuse to do business with whom the card holder chooses, but would dispute in your best interest "over charges" and "bad services" of course. After around a few years of this studying the market place with we the taxpayers, some service providers and their services may no longer meet the standards in which the insured would expect to receive in the market place. Therefore these service providers by the will of the people would be banned. The system would be a team effort and not a government dictatorial system in which the taxpayers would have no say in.

And what is this "entirely different gov't?"

Who votes in this entirely different gov't?

You want everyone to accept only your plan?

What are the standards?

Do you want to ban services providers because they don't meet some arbitrary standard, set by you?

 

[beagle9]

Isn't funny how we have all this class warfare in this nation, and then we have all the jockeying for position or money's to be allocated to what ever click when certain people get in power, and then when groups get power over other groups, it swells them up like a puff adder in their thinking or acting as if they did it all on their own.

 

[beagle9]

. Another misleading statement about my ideas. Government doesn't decide anything, because we would have the power to decide for ourselves where we use our healthcare card issued us. The taxes are deducted just like SS is from our income.

It shouldn't be (with an American pool so large), no more than around $8.00 dollars a week deduction or less would be the amount deducted. Then when we use the healthcare card at the legitimate places of our choice, it then spurs the market into competitions for us... This is a great thing. We all win. The government just handles our accounts and cards issued us. They don't dictate anything to us, and the market will respond to us in kind if we have that kind of power invested in us.

So when government controls our health plans and decides what procedures they cover and what they pay, that isn't government "deciding anything."

Um ... I don't get it. What's the punch line?

. No, we would be the deciders not the government in my idea. The government taxed insurance coverage would be a great basic coverage for us all to have, and then if we wanted extra coverage for things like cosmetic and/or supplemental insurance coverage, then we could purchase that as an extra insurance also. The main thing is to have a basic foundational insurance coverage in which we all can rely upon. Better yet if we pay the tax for years and years, and we use only a fraction of it in our life times, then the value of our indivdual plan in percentage of, can be rolled over to increase the retirement side of life say after age 65. This should give the incentive to use the plan wisely.

So you actually believe that when government decides what doctors you can see, what they can charge, what government pays and what you have to pay, and if you don't see those doctors you are on your own, you have free choice.

Just curious, were you the product of a still birth?

. No, and you see these are things in which you and others believe and do know, but my plan is based upon an entirely different government. It will only work if the government is changed. Then the plan I submit would be great, because it will ensure that every American has a basic healthcare insurance policy. The terms of the service would be laid out in the plan. Anyone wanting more than the plan covers, will have to purchase added coverage in the market place. The basic coverage that will be issued all Americans with a card to use, will be affordable due the entire nation participating in it. There would be no need to not want it, because the cost of it will be miniscule. The government would yes list the legit service providers it would honor, and yet it would not refuse to do business with whom the card holder chooses, but would dispute in your best interest "over charges" and "bad services" of course. After around a few years of this studying the market place with we the taxpayers, some service providers and their services may no longer meet the standards in which the insured would expect to receive in the market place. Therefore these service providers by the will of the people would be banned. The system would be a team effort and not a government dictatorial system in which the taxpayers would have no say in.

And what is this "entirely different gov't?"

Who votes in this entirely different gov't?

You want everyone to accept only your plan?

What are the standards?

Do you want to ban services providers because they don't meet some arbitrary standard, set by you?

. You'll have to go back and catch way up, because I can't keep explaining over and over again my total opinions or ideas on this.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

All Americans should have a right to a basic insurance plan that is paid for with a deduction out of their incomes. It should be a plan that covers the basic life sustaining needs of the American. Extra coverage should be allowed to be purchased outside of the government plan, because the government is not a dictatorship and should never be a dictatorship.

No one has a "right" to reach into anyone else's wallet. It's armed robbery

. Well what do you call it when the greed driven rich (the ones who do this in what are way to many these days), use their power and influence to rob and abuse the ones who can't defend against it ? There are countless examples of them abusing their power, but that doesn't count huh ? So when government is called in to help drive a wedge in between the two, then the government becomes that bad guy. Look I am not for socialism or dictatorships etc., but I am also not for the lower rungs on the ladder being stepped on by those who would do such a thing, and all because they (the weak), can't resist them. There has to be a balancing in society, and it can't be that the rich and powerful can abuse their power without consequence. If we want to go back to the plantation age of the 1800's then just say so.

I don't want to call in the gov't to help.

They are the ones who create the problems, and insist they fix the problems they created.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

So when government controls our health plans and decides what procedures they cover and what they pay, that isn't government "deciding anything."

Um ... I don't get it. What's the punch line?

. No, we would be the deciders not the government in my idea. The government taxed insurance coverage would be a great basic coverage for us all to have, and then if we wanted extra coverage for things like cosmetic and/or supplemental insurance coverage, then we could purchase that as an extra insurance also. The main thing is to have a basic foundational insurance coverage in which we all can rely upon. Better yet if we pay the tax for years and years, and we use only a fraction of it in our life times, then the value of our indivdual plan in percentage of, can be rolled over to increase the retirement side of life say after age 65. This should give the incentive to use the plan wisely.

So you actually believe that when government decides what doctors you can see, what they can charge, what government pays and what you have to pay, and if you don't see those doctors you are on your own, you have free choice.

Just curious, were you the product of a still birth?

. No, and you see these are things in which you and others believe and do know, but my plan is based upon an entirely different government. It will only work if the government is changed. Then the plan I submit would be great, because it will ensure that every American has a basic healthcare insurance policy. The terms of the service would be laid out in the plan. Anyone wanting more than the plan covers, will have to purchase added coverage in the market place. The basic coverage that will be issued all Americans with a card to use, will be affordable due the entire nation participating in it. There would be no need to not want it, because the cost of it will be miniscule. The government would yes list the legit service providers it would honor, and yet it would not refuse to do business with whom the card holder chooses, but would dispute in your best interest "over charges" and "bad services" of course. After around a few years of this studying the market place with we the taxpayers, some service providers and their services may no longer meet the standards in which the insured would expect to receive in the market place. Therefore these service providers by the will of the people would be banned. The system would be a team effort and not a government dictatorial system in which the taxpayers would have no say in.

And what is this "entirely different gov't?"

Who votes in this entirely different gov't?

You want everyone to accept only your plan?

What are the standards?

Do you want to ban services providers because they don't meet some arbitrary standard, set by you?

. You'll have to go back and catch way up, because I can't keep explaining over and over again my total opinions or ideas on this.

I don't have to go back and catch up on anything.

You posted it.

I'm asking questions!

 

[Yousaidwhat]

No one has a "right" to reach into anyone else's wallet. It's armed robbery

. Well what do you call it when the greed driven rich (the ones who do this in what are way to many these days), use their power and influence to rob and abuse the ones who can't defend against it ? There are countless examples of them abusing their power, but that doesn't count huh ? So when government is called in to help drive a wedge in between the two, then the government becomes that bad guy. Look I am not for socialism or dictatorships etc., but I am also not for the lower rungs on the ladder being stepped on by those who would do such a thing, and all because they (the weak), can't resist them. There has to be a balancing in society, and it can't be that the rich and powerful can abuse their power without consequence. If we want to go back to the plantation age of the 1800's then just say so.

Greed is earning your own money. It's not your using guns to take money from the people who earned it. That canard is just tired at this point comrade.

And fraud and stealing are crimes. You can prove it, prove it it doesn't justify taking a gun and taking it from someone you haven't proven ever did anything wrong

. Why are you so selfish, that you care about no one but yourself in life ? Greed is not just earning your own money, but rather it is the taking of more than you have earned, and when this happens it is robbing from someone else. The greedy are somehow smart enough though, to keep everyone just one step behind them and their bull crap.

You know if people were more decent human beings in their lives than what they are these days, then the balance in society would be more acceptable to most. Now how to fix that in order to change the mindset of the nation is really tough. Once peoples minds become so greedy and corrupt, then government becomes stronger and stronger trying to counter it, and to keep the fall out to a minimum. The situation we have today in this nation is the result of a colliding of issues over time, and the result of people trying to seperate themselves from it all by ways of their gathering up as much as they can, then storing it in barns, and watching as a nation simply explodes from within.

The worse thing that has become the norm is this attitude of hey I got mine, and who gives a care about you? Many people are able to live with that, but their are those whom still want to help out and do the right thing in life. Now there is great problems that have resulted from class warfare in this nation, but sooner or later people have got to face the issues found within it all.

I personally think that if we had a government run by people we could trust, and it offered us an insurance plan that would be taken out of our incomes, and it only cost us around &5.00 dollars a week for a basic life sustaining coverage, then all the citizens would have absolutely no problem with it. Then what the basic plan doesn't cover, additional coverage should be purchased separately. Being a citizen of this United States should have some good things about it, and if people had their way today like many haters do wish for, they would crush this nation completely.

I'm "selfish" because I want to decide who to help with my money rather than those who want my money taking it from me by force and doing what they want with it. You aren't selfish, wanting to decide what to do with the money I earned, I'm selfish for wanting to decide what to do with the money I earned.

Got it. go on, I'm writing this down

. You are selfish for not wanting to fix the problem, and government can help to fix the problems if it is trusted and managed right. Your problem is not with me, but your problem is you hate anything government, and you ain't the only one. Now if the government is won by the Republicans, would you support it then ? I bet you wouldn't then either would you. You just hate government, and in alot of ways I can't blame you really. But how does it get fixed then ? It sure don't by attitudes such as yours. The private insurance was scamming us bad before Obama ever came along, and there was also a problem with it before Bill Clinton came along as well. The providers were even scamming the government with double billing and Medicare fraud and you name it. Why is it when people want to fix something, all the fat rata come out the wood works to stop anything from helping the citizens in this nation ?

We don't trust the gov't to manage anything properly.