Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?

[dblack]

The biggest failure we have in our healthcare system is controlling costs. Everybody has ideas, but nobody ever addresses the cost. The first step to solving this problem is getting the cost down, then figure out how we are going to pay for it.

The thing is, how we pay for it IS the problem.

No, it's only a problem because no matter how we pay for it, it's way too much. Government is responsible for much of our unaffordable insurance, yet some think the people who crated the problem would be the perfect ones to fix it.

My point is, all the scheming we've done to shift health care costs onto "someone else" has driven prices ever higher.

 

[emilynghiem]

All of us should pay for it through taxes.

Thank you Seawytch
I agree if you mean paying for health care should be tax deductible, so you pay for your own, or if a nonprofit or business pays for you, they deduct it.

What about conflicts over who should pay for "other people's" health care? What if someone doesn't believe in abortion, or drugs, should they still be required to pay costs of consequences from people doing what they don't believe in paying for?

What if we can prove that setting up Cooperatives cuts the cost of health care in half.
If this allows people to provide "universal care for all" then should Cooperatives be required in order to save enough resources to protect and serve people equally?

What if spiritual healing is proven medically to save lives and costs of addiction.

If you are saying people can be forced to pay taxes to pay for drug addicts, could people paying those taxes add a REQUIREMENT that such people go through "spiritual healing" before they agree to pay for their health care?

What if we don't agree on terms for paying for health care? Should we separate groups by their beliefs so people fund or defund as they believe without interfering with each other's beliefs?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The biggest failure we have in our healthcare system is controlling costs. Everybody has ideas, but nobody ever addresses the cost. The first step to solving this problem is getting the cost down, then figure out how we are going to pay for it.

The thing is, how we pay for it IS the problem.

No, it's only a problem because no matter how we pay for it, it's way too much. Government is responsible for much of our unaffordable insurance, yet some think the people who crated the problem would be the perfect ones to fix it.

My point is, all the scheming we've done to shift health care costs onto "someone else" has driven prices ever higher.

Yes it has. It's one of the many ways government is making care unaffordable. Medicare and Medicaid only pay about 2/3 of billed services. That means providers must increase the price of care for everybody else. That means our insurance pays for those recouped costs. Then they increase rates and less people can afford coverage or it becomes too costly for your employer so he or she drops coverage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Free Market allows for best choices start to finish. Let free choice best opportunity float to the top.

Accountants don't have in-crowds start to finish is a problem with Marketplaces and big corporations, or if we went straight to the actuaries. Healthcare is weird.

The biggest failure we have in our healthcare system is controlling costs. Everybody has ideas, but nobody ever addresses the cost. The first step to solving this problem is getting the cost down, then figure out how we are going to pay for it. And there are at least a dozen ways to bring down costs, some not costing the taxpayer a dime. But our politicians won't do it.

Hi Ray From Cleveland
What if we
1. prove that given the Cooperative model already being used by direct service or concierge programs cuts the costs in half, and we have the stats to prove these numbers

EX: www.patientphysiciancoop.com

2. then we cite the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for anyone in Govt Service to seek the most economical ways of accomplishing tasks:

IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

www.ethics-commission.net

3. could we then compel either govt officials or candidates, precinct or party leaders, to start implementing and adopting these cooperative programs in order to cut costs of medical and health care?

If you don't think all politicians or leaders would respond to this solutions, which people would you recommend, in office or in the media, to promote it and pressure the others to follow suit?

I don't have time to read your links right now. Perhaps this weekend since I have three days off. But I worked in medical for ten years. I know what exhaustive policies we have that change almost weekly. We had to train our office personnel every month on new government changes, and it was never for the better.

However there is a solution that would make both parties somewhat happy, and that is have private/ government insurance.

On the government side, anybody who has preexisting conditions that can't find affordable private insurance get to go on Medicare. Like when you go on SS disability, you have to buy a Medicare policy that's right and affordable for you. All the policies are affordable no matter which one you choose.

That takes all the high risk clients off the rolls of private insurance. Because those high risk people are no longer driving up insurance costs, they can lower their premium prices and that makes it affordable for those without preexisting conditions.

 

[talksalot]

Competition in the markets would help keep health insurance costs down.
The government already funds a huge entitlement in Medicaid.

 

[emilynghiem]

The people who should pay for health care are the same people who should pay for food, or shelter, or transportation, or entertainment, etc, etc, etc...

Hi dblack what about people like Thinker 101 who believe health care is a right, not a choice like the other options you list.

They have an incoherent conception of the term "right".

What about people who believe in health care through govt? How can these people's beliefs be accommodated without imposing on others who don't have those same beliefs (or whose beliefs would be violated as with Constitutionalists).

They can't. That's the nature of government.

Would you agree to the idea of requiring Parties that preach health care as a right, to set up a "govt" system of providing this for their members through their own taxes or tax deductions for building their own programs to serve the members of the public who share those beliefs?

I like a lot of what you have to say, but I just don't see how this solves anything.

Should States manage the separation of beliefs, or should we separate taxation by party? What do you suggest so that people with this "health care as a right" belief can exercise their beliefs without discrimination, denial or equal protections?

Move to a socialist country?

Sorry to be glib, but this - to me - it's like asking "What do you suggest so that people with this "owning slaves is a right" belief can exercise their beliefs without discrimination, denial or equal protections".

Hi dblack
1. for people who want "slaves" or "free labor"
you can set up legal ways to do this voluntarily
a. Set up a nonprofit that serves so well that people
want to donate or volunteer freely, so yes, you get
free labor and free materials or free money/resources
b. Set up student internships where education and training
is exchanged for work done as part of coursework credits
c. Set up restitution programs where people apply their labor
toward paying back debts, similar to barter
d. Barter or labor currency systems that track "credits" so people can exchange labor hours for goods or services
by others accepting the credits or currency

Those are 'realistic' alternatives I've looked at

Now let's apply these above to the "health care as a right" campaign (since even Rand Paul and Avatar4321 brought
up that forcing health care as a free right would impose
"involuntary servitude" on others providing materials, labor
and services)

1. Why not set up medical school programs where doctors and nurses earn their education by providing health care services to the public as part of their internships, residency and training

2. What about converting prisons where people owe restitution for crimes and cost of prosecution and incarceration to victims or the public/taxpayer footing
these costs, so that restitution goes into funding health
care for victims or the public and it's paid for by people
who actually committed crimes and were convicted
in order to justify losing their liberty as part of the penalty

3. how about 100% tax deductions for nonprofits that provide cost effective services and medical education,
so there ARE volunteer participants and donors choosing
FREELY to provide "free labor and services"
(see examples of charity programs such as St. Jude's or Doctors without Borders).

Given these more cost effective approaches,
couldn't people choose freely to contribute?
And why not make that tax deductible so it
REWARDS people for investing in health care
(and only penalized people who commit crimes
or abuses for which they owe restitution anyway)

Is that really impossible to reconcile with our
govt and culture that promotes free market choices?

 

[emilynghiem]

Who should pay for nutritional care? Who should pay for pediatric care and environmental care?

whitehall

Families and/or nonprofits or other organizations that
specialize in these things could decide or offer the best
ways to provide the best care.

For environmental, I would recommend that the GREEN PARTY start organizing all environmental groups, coalitions and even depts at schools/universities that focus on science and environment/energy to manage a system of consulting on R&D into the best solutions or approaches to environmental issues. Both the investigation of problems, the cost of damages, and the solutions. And build a system of educational internships and jobs around solving those problems and restoring environment, wildlife and wilderness affected by abusive damages.

If Govt or corporate entities need to be involved in the corrections, I would recommend organizing systems of legal redress of grievances similar to the OSHA health and safety codes and hearings/penalty system.

For public health and safety, I could see this being set up per State, and people opting into their own local programs or ordinances based on school districts, city council or party precincts, or electoral college districts where they can set up local representation by party or by civic association or any other organization they want to use to address local policies and programs. I could see this being done through school FACILITIES, so all districts have equal access by population, but the PROGRAMS and policies would not be decided by govt, but by local people and taxpayers actually affected. Again, given that people have different beliefs, I would recommend representation by party so if people don't agree they can separate funding and terms of policies.

 

[Dick Foster]

Who should pay for nutritional care? Who should pay for pediatric care and environmental care?

Who should pay for your underwear and socks?

 

[Mike Dwight]

well who whould pay for the next "deepthroat" , go F yourself, and I'll kill your dog, and you can't Create News, I mean its just quid pro quo.

 

[Rustic]

All of us should pay for it through taxes.

Lol
Na, not really

Too much abuse and corruption

 

[emilynghiem]

Who should pay for nutritional care? Who should pay for pediatric care and environmental care?

Who should pay for your underwear and socks?

Dear Dick Foster and Mike Dwight

I happen to believe that people who BELIEVE health care is right
should be treated like people who believe in right to life
and be expected to pay for their own programs based on their own beliefs.

as for
1. "Underwear and Socks"
last I checked these did not require medical licensing
and malpractice insurance etc. plus years of medical or
specialized education and training that jacks up the costs.

2. Nobody I know is politically espousing the belief
that "underwear and socks" are a "right that govt should guarantee"
as with Obama pushing and enforcing ACA through Govt, Democrats in Congress voting on it, and taxpayer being forced to pay for mandates
as well as Corporate handouts to insurance companies under that.

3. My question is GIVEN THAT PEOPLE ARE ARGUING THAT
HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT,
should THOSE PEOPLE have to pay for that belief?
Through their PARTY? Through the STATE?

SINCE these people or party believe health care should
be through "govt" then WHAT level or WHAT system
"through govt" should be used to accommodate THOSE PEOPLE.

Sure Mike Dwight and Dick Foster
I AGREE those people should pay for their own.
But by WHICH method?
They don't believe in paying through free market,
so which way would you recommend they pay for their own
health care choices and beliefs? Through party or state or what?

Pay for health care and deduct it 100% from taxes?
Which way?

 

[emilynghiem]

All of us should pay for it through taxes.

Lol
Na, not really

Too much abuse and corruption

Thanks Rustic
OK Seawytch what about people like
Rustic who don't trust govt to handle the health care programs or resources, or people like me who don't find govt to be able to manage
the difference in beliefs and choices that individuals and groups demand.

What way would you allow all people to have equal freedom of choice
how to pay for health care?

Would you let us go through whatever program we choose,
then deduct the costs 100% off taxes? Would that work?

 

[BluesLegend]

You have the right to pay your own damn healthcare bills you mooching thieving deadbeats. Get off your big fat lard ass and work a job.

 

[Seawytch]

All of us should pay for it through taxes.

Thank you Seawytch
I agree if you mean paying for health care should be tax deductible, so you pay for your own, or if a nonprofit or business pays for you, they deduct it.

What about conflicts over who should pay for "other people's" health care? What if someone doesn't believe in abortion, or drugs, should they still be required to pay costs of consequences from people doing what they don't believe in paying for?

What if we can prove that setting up Cooperatives cuts the cost of health care in half.
If this allows people to provide "universal care for all" then should Cooperatives be required in order to save enough resources to protect and serve people equally?

What if spiritual healing is proven medically to save lives and costs of addiction.

If you are saying people can be forced to pay taxes to pay for drug addicts, could people paying those taxes add a REQUIREMENT that such people go through "spiritual healing" before they agree to pay for their health care?

What if we don't agree on terms for paying for health care? Should we separate groups by their beliefs so people fund or defund as they believe without interfering with each other's beliefs?

No, that's not what I meant or advocate. I support universal basic coverage for all Americans paid for with our taxes with supplemental plans available through insurance companies. Employers could still offer benefits to their employees with good supplemental plans.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE "No, that's not what I meant or advocate. I support universal basic coverage for all Americans paid for with our taxes with supplemental plans available through insurance companies. Employers could still offer benefits to their employees with good supplemental plans."

========

Thank you Seawytch

Since people do not all agree on terms of health care, such as not having the same beliefs
about abortion, reproductive care and choices of birth control, recreational drugs that cause potential side effects and increased costs, etc.
Do you think this affects "universal basic coverage" and not just insurance rates if you are saying those are supplemental.

Do you believe people should still have free and equal choice and "representation"
in what programs and terms their taxes are paying for?

 

[emilynghiem]

You have the right to pay your own damn healthcare bills you mooching thieving deadbeats. Get off your big fat lard ass and work a job.

BluesLegend also Dick Foster and Mike Dwight
Since Obama, Pelosi and other members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY
collectively conspired to abuse Govt to force this "health care as a right" BELIEF on
other taxpayers of dissenting beliefs (thus violating First Amendment rights
against Establishing a religion/belief and Civil Rights against Discrimination by Creed)

Would you agree with my argument that these DEMOCRATS responsible
for "conspiring to violate equal civil rights of other taxpayers"
should pay RESTITUTION for unconstitutional abuses of govt?

Think about it, if this UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation and enforcement
cost taxpayers billions in contested Corporate handouts to private insurance interests,
then an est. $24 billion in costs for the federal govt shutdown over the UNCONSTITUTIONAL
requirements that affected the federal budget, why couldn't citizens argue to be reimbursed CREDITS for those costs?

Would that be a fair way to redirect taxes and costs "generated by people like Obama
Pelosi and other Democrats" by their "belief" in "imposing health care as a right" beliefs through govt.

Why not demand credits back to taxpayers,
then divide those credits to the different parties complaining.

Would that be a fair way to fund the parties who believe
in paying for their own health care (instead of paying corporate insurance)
whether
1. Democrats take their tax credits and want to pay for health care through GOVT
2. Republicans take their tax refunds and apply that to paying for health care through FREE MARKET choices
3. Other taxpayers and parties likewise take their refunded tax credits and pay for health care as they believe

Would that solve the problem of "some people or parties" still believing
in going through govt to pay for their health care? Could this be done
by free choice, but mandatory for those who committed violations
and who owe restitution/reimbursement. Is that a fair way to fund health care reforms
where free choice of beliefs is respected (and those who believe in going
through govt can still do so without affecting others who don't).

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is one of the best discussion on health care I have seen in a long time. Keep going.

 

[Dick Foster]

Who should pay for nutritional care? Who should pay for pediatric care and environmental care?

Who should pay for your underwear and socks?

Dear Dick Foster and Mike Dwight

I happen to believe that people who BELIEVE health care is right
should be treated like people who believe in right to life
and be expected to pay for their own programs based on their own beliefs.

as for
1. "Underwear and Socks"
last I checked these did not require medical licensing
and malpractice insurance etc. plus years of medical or
specialized education and training that jacks up the costs.

2. Nobody I know is politically espousing the belief
that "underwear and socks" are a "right that govt should guarantee"
as with Obama pushing and enforcing ACA through Govt, Democrats in Congress voting on it, and taxpayer being forced to pay for mandates
as well as Corporate handouts to insurance companies under that.

3. My question is GIVEN THAT PEOPLE ARE ARGUING THAT
HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT,
should THOSE PEOPLE have to pay for that belief?
Through their PARTY? Through the STATE?

SINCE these people or party believe health care should
be through "govt" then WHAT level or WHAT system
"through govt" should be used to accommodate THOSE PEOPLE.

Sure Mike Dwight and Dick Foster
I AGREE those people should pay for their own.
But by WHICH method?
They don't believe in paying through free market,
so which way would you recommend they pay for their own
health care choices and beliefs? Through party or state or what?

Pay for health care and deduct it 100% from taxes?
Which way?

I believe that they should take out their bank card or check book and simply pay their medical bills like they pay for anything else. If you clean all the bullshit out of the system and allow the free market to work as it should, medical costs will all of a sudden become affordable once again. Remember, I'm old enough to have witness this whole healthcare travesty take place. It all began with employer provided healthcare insurance as a response to the government instituting wage and price controls that they should never have in the over heated post war economy. Then the asshole politicians got into the act by expanding the socalist polices of social security to include Medicare. This is nothing more than buying votes with free candy that the recipients actually pay for themselves.
Get rid of all governmet intrusion into healthcare and make selling healthcare insurance which is a scam and con game illegal and healthcare will once again become affordable for everyone. The way to keep government fingers out of it forever is to institute single term limits but that will be a cold day in hell, nonetheless it would go a long way toward curing the ills of our current political mess forever.

 

[Dick Foster]

You have the right to pay your own damn healthcare bills you mooching thieving deadbeats. Get off your big fat lard ass and work a job.

BluesLegend also Dick Foster and Mike Dwight
Since Obama, Pelosi and other members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY
collectively conspired to abuse Govt to force this "health care as a right" BELIEF on
other taxpayers of dissenting beliefs (thus violating First Amendment rights
against Establishing a religion/belief and Civil Rights against Discrimination by Creed)

Would you agree with my argument that these DEMOCRATS responsible
for "conspiring to violate equal civil rights of other taxpayers"
should pay RESTITUTION for unconstitutional abuses of govt?

Think about it, if this UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation and enforcement
cost taxpayers billions in contested Corporate handouts to private insurance interests,
then an est. $24 billion in costs for the federal govt shutdown over the UNCONSTITUTIONAL
requirements that affected the federal budget, why couldn't citizens argue to be reimbursed CREDITS for those costs?

Would that be a fair way to redirect taxes and costs "generated by people like Obama
Pelosi and other Democrats" by their "belief" in "imposing health care as a right" beliefs through govt.

Why not demand credits back to taxpayers,
then divide those credits to the different parties complaining.

Would that be a fair way to fund the parties who believe
in paying for their own health care (instead of paying corporate insurance)
whether
1. Democrats take their tax credits and want to pay for health care through GOVT
2. Republicans take their tax refunds and apply that to paying for health care through FREE MARKET choices
3. Other taxpayers and parties likewise take their refunded tax credits and pay for health care as they believe

Would that solve the problem of "some people or parties" still believing
in going through govt to pay for their health care? Could this be done
by free choice, but mandatory for those who committed violations
and who owe restitution/reimbursement. Is that a fair way to fund health care reforms
where free choice of beliefs is respected (and those who believe in going
through govt can still do so without affecting others who don't).

I'd settle for clapping their asses in a cell in Leavenworth. Let's not be too greedy. Remember greed is what created this mess in the first place.

 

[emilynghiem]

All of us should pay for it through taxes.

Thank you Seawytch
I agree if you mean paying for health care should be tax deductible, so you pay for your own, or if a nonprofit or business pays for you, they deduct it.

What about conflicts over who should pay for "other people's" health care? What if someone doesn't believe in abortion, or drugs, should they still be required to pay costs of consequences from people doing what they don't believe in paying for?

What if we can prove that setting up Cooperatives cuts the cost of health care in half.
If this allows people to provide "universal care for all" then should Cooperatives be required in order to save enough resources to protect and serve people equally?

What if spiritual healing is proven medically to save lives and costs of addiction.

If you are saying people can be forced to pay taxes to pay for drug addicts, could people paying those taxes add a REQUIREMENT that such people go through "spiritual healing" before they agree to pay for their health care?

What if we don't agree on terms for paying for health care? Should we separate groups by their beliefs so people fund or defund as they believe without interfering with each other's beliefs?

No, that's not what I meant or advocate. I support universal basic coverage for all Americans paid for with our taxes with supplemental plans available through insurance companies. Employers could still offer benefits to their employees with good supplemental plans.

Dear Seawytch
Wouldn't it be better to KEEP the medicare pricing so all services can be accessed at cost or close to it
(and still pay provider equal to what govt or insurance pays them based on these prices or pay more since money is saved
by NOT going through govt or insurance which adds administrative costs and hassle to providers and patients)
But CUT OUT the govt/insurance red tape
and just pay the providers DIRECTLY?

That's what Cooperatives do. Isn't that the best of both worlds?

No fighting about going through govt which violates beliefs and free choice of others.
No hassling with claims and administrative backlog that jack up the costs.
No paying profits to commercial corporate insurance, or paying for waste through govt that isn't localized as Cooperatives are
with more direct access and transparency because the members choose which providers to add to and hire with their chapters.

If you could have Cooperative nonprofits negotiate to get "Medicare pricing" by helping providers cut their costs,
AND retain free choice instead of depending on govt to manage for you which depends on other voters and officials,
wouldn't you prefer that?

See previous reply about respecting equal free choice of other people that isn't possible going through govt not equipped to handle
individual choices for every person equally:
Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?