Health is a R-I-G-H-T !!!

1. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   If you don't think so, this video will surely convince you!
   https://www.c-span.org/video/?428821-1/ … conference

   replyreport
   1. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Health is a life endowed R-I-G-H-T that governments are authorized to interfere with, especially the United States of America by the reading of the Constitution which has never been implemented [see my hub The US Constitution's Spirit].
      
      The earth is a conglomeration of living entities consuming one another to maintain themselves and their specie. In living it health would be no factor, our eating raw from all seed bearing plants, drinking water from its source without changing it and allowing the normal state of earth's eco system to sustain the air quality would prohibit ill health. That is the premise of the US Constitution, to allow every, in its usual reading, man of both genders and children are to be able to obtain their needs although it is set in the context of economics rather than the earth's ecology. 
      
      By living economically the premise is everything man do is for money, their health, life, wellbeing, and the conditioned into them needs are all for the purpose of maintaining the economic system. Individual man matters not in comparison. The only way to exit that "Matrix" is to overcome judging based on sense perceptions and return to living environmentally.
      
      Yes, health is THE R-I-G-H-T of all life but man's economic system infringes on that right for every life type. However, that is the external plan for man's cycle on earth because at this era of it man's economic system must end and only when about 10% of us see the earth can not sustain the economic system will that end begin. According to prophecy, that end will be completed no later than 2028. According to the Zodiac, the May 25, 2017 "New Moon" is the usher to bring that 10% into consciousness.
      
      Be at peace in the life you live, every life-force will have a day to survive it.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         … how would that return look?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            KLH, it would cause man to live like the other species, nude, houseless, hairy all over [Adam and his wife's coats of skin was the removal of the hair off man], herbivores and sex for reproduction only with 12 years of nursing children for a minimum of 13 years between them.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I hope this return does NOT! 
               
               "sex for reproduction," instead of the wide spread practice of test tube fertilizations as is practiced now?
               
               
               I wonder if this is what he was complaining about?
               IVF and Other Fertility Treatments:
               In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) can be accomplished with the assistance of egg donation, a sperm donor, or in some cases, donated embryos. For some couples, a surrogate to carry the baby is also part of the process.
               http://www.pfcla.com/ivf-ppc?gclid=CJ6m … aQodI28Aog

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  The earth has reached it's limit for "man's madness" and time for a renewing of the earth before the other half of the cycle comes into being in about 7,000 years. Everything in existence happens in cycles and what happens on earth is no exception so this morning [time of light] world - not earth - shall end for the evening [time preceding light] world replace it. Both are about 82,000 each with 7,000 transitions between them and are not to be stopped less all of existence terminates.
                  
                  We can't "have our cake and ear it too", everything must change and the world is no exception.

                  replyreport
2. 0

   Will Apseposted 7 years ago

   The American Way:
   
   Pay low wages
   Grossly inflate healthcare costs to promote corporate profits
   Condemn the poor for not earning enough to look after themselves (or more accurately the corporations)
   Revel in their early deaths

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Marisa Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The Liberal way
         
         Pay high wages to the uneducated and untrained at the expense of the educated and trained.
         Grossly deflate healthcare costs to prevent any profits whatsoever.
         Reward the poor for not earning enough to look after themselves.
         Revel in their democratic votes and their long lives.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Kathryn, we are on the same page.  I couldn't have agreed w/you more.   Healthcare isn't a right like housing & food.  These things one must PAY FOR.   NO ONE owes anyone ANYTHING.  One MUST EARN his/her way & for things like housing, health care, food, etc.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               We have the right to do so.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Why don't liberals understand our resistance ?   Because they want their total health care cheaper or for free. It's simple Kathryn  ,   Why be financially or otherwise responsible for themselves if they can  obligate us to do that for them ? Drug abuse , obesity , addictions of alcohol ,   childbearing ,............The selfishness of group entitlement ?  Baffling !
                  
                  It's progressive , "Mommy i need money for  the mall " , becomes  " Where's my freebie health care "? 
                  
                  --Update ;   VA announces  over 30 new cases of  varying missing medication  at V.A. hospitals across the country bringing the total cases to over 100  being investigated ,  so much for ANY government run programs ?

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Yep, ahorseback:
                     
                     Furthermore:
                     "Adding to the problem is the fact that while the facilities are supposed to be conducting monthly inspections of drug supplies, congressional auditors found these inspections and other requirements appear to routinely be skipped or overlooked, a problem dating back to at least 2009.
                     
                     The VA admitted to having problems keeping up with the monthly inspections but also said they are working to improve inspection procedures."
                     http://www.guns.com/2017/02/24/va-hospi … ing-drugs/

                     replyreport
                  2. 59

                     Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I have been to a doctor once in the last ten years. I go by the rule 'wait 24 hours and it should be over'. I google symptoms, assume the simplest and least problematic diagnosis and go from there. Insurance companies have always made money on me. And that is fine.
                     
                     Oddly, I don't fit into your categories but I still believe we need to find a way for netball health care. Of course, compassion drives that belief. You might want to find a way to develop some of that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        … compassion for those who will abuse the system and compassion for the government which will mismanage the funds?

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I see the idea of compassion for your fellow man escapes you.

                           replyreport
                     2. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I too believe in Affordable  health care ,  but what isn't necessary is free health care if it IS affordable !
                        Affordable  is FAR FAR different  than wanting something , everything for free .   The problem with  most of the recent two or three generations of  America's bill payers is just that , they don't feel accountable  for the any of  the  financial obligations of life in general .
                        
                        It is the work ethics and general accountability  for the costs of living that is changing ,   Why , why , why work for ANYTHING if it can be attained for free , I can already see the shaking heads of the liberal  accountability avoidance crowd  going into meltdown reading this however .   
                        
                        So lets just ask , Who wants it affordable and Who wants it for free ? 
                        
                        This doesn't mean everyone of the younger crowds , but certainly a majority  !

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           There is no such thing as a free lunch. We would, of course, be taxed for it. I'd rather see my taxes go toward the welfare of our citizens than to some foreign government.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              We are already taxed for it Read "Section 8.1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" doesn't it say that we already are taxed for "general Welfare"?

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 We are not taxed specifically for health care coverage. Thats why those who are not signed up for Obama Care are FINED. This illegally subtracted amount of $$$ is not an agreed-upon tax, (which all taxes are.) Its a FINE. They lie, (to get away with this illegal financial extraction,) and say its a tax. What gets me is that no one wants to call out the Fed. Govt. on this.
                                 NOT EVEN TRUMP!!!!    
                                 
                                 
                                 We The People are powerless because WE DON'T CARE ENOUGH about our freedom.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    "General Welfare" includes general health or don't you realize health is the primary part of "general welfare"?

                                    replyreport
                  3. 59

                     The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     horseback, the blame belongs on we the people, read the constitution and see.

                     replyreport
            2. 81

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Although I'm not going into a discussion, just wondering what do you think of all the other countries around the world who have better and cheaper healthcare? 
               
               Because I think we can all agree that the USA system of an open-market place simply does not fit the insurance modeling of profiteering.  It's a myth that a fully open market -  totally free -  which normally works with the more goods and services you sell - the more money you make.
               
               Not so with insurance. The less goods and services are supplied - the more profit you make.
               
               Nixon specifically had Kaiser Permanente in mind when he signed the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973.
               
               ______________________________________Oval Office__________
               President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
               
               Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
               
               President Nixon: [Unclear.]
               
               Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
               
               President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
               
               Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
               
               President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”
               
               Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”
               
               President Nixon: [Unclear.]
               
               Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”
               
               President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]
               
               Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”
               
               President Nixon: “Not bad.”
               
               [Source: University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.]
               
               It appears that President Nixon knowing full well that Kaiser was not being honest.
               
               These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than US http://www.businessinsider.com/best-hea … sta-rica-1
               
               World Health Report 2000 results became notorious — the US healthcare system came in 15th in overall performance, and first in overall expenditure per capita. That result meant that its overall ranking was 37th.
               
               Medicare overhead costs = 3% (debatable) but  for-profit corporations' major overhead is in denying you care.
               
               Is health a right or a privilege?
               "Is health care a basic human right?" Yes, Health is an Individual Right.
               Is healthcare a right, a privilege or neither?
               Is it OK to let someone die because they are not insured?
               
               Health care is a necessity. Health care is like clean water.
               
               Why this blind devotion to a slew of failed economic principles? Why do you really believe in these policies such as lowering taxes for the wealthy, gutting safety net public programs that assist struggling families?
               
               
               
               Turkish official teasing starved Armenian children by showing bread during the Armenian Genocide, 1915
               
               
               
               I

               replyreport
            3. 59

               The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               gmwilliams, read USC "Section 8.1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" which say if your household pay taxes your welfare is supposed to be provided for by them.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Sounds OK to me.

            replyreport
         3. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I have never met a liberal in my entire life who thinks that way.

            replyreport
         4. 72

            Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So ridiculous that us liberals don't want people to suffer or die because they don't make enough money to survive if they get sick.  Man, how do we live with ourselves?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               How do you live with expecting everyone else to PAY for your health care   it is the real wonder .

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not a liberal and I certainly think we need to find a way to have a fair and equitable national health care policy. I'm afraid that every human being deserves basic and reasonable life saving health care; whether they have a million dollars in the bank, or not. Whether they can afford to pay insurance companies exorbitant rates for negligible coverage, or not. We can certainly argue over how it can be achieved but I wouldn't think we would argue the need to achieve it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes  , there is a way , regulations and free market competition .
                     
                     - free up across state line insurance  co. and underwriter competition.
                     - fixed pricing -fee regulation
                     - do regulation -deregulations where needed
                     
                     Stop LEGISLATIVELY supporting   hyper -profiteering by hospital associations ,   the AMA lobbyism , check the union member  lobbyism of professionals ?   The current health care - mess is HIGHLY Congress and Senate supported , and White House approved .
                     
                     It doesn't take rocket science , it takes uncorrupted federal legislating  , KEYWORD uncorrupted.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Keyword uncorrupted? I'm afraid I agree with Ashton Firefly. You aren't going to find some magical way to keep people from profiting off of sickness and possible death. Regulation is not going to fix things. Opening up the borders for insurance companies is not going to fix things.
                        
                        Greed will always factor in, and greed should play no part in saving lives. Sorry. I'm very pro national health care. Obama care was a failure from the get go. The Republican plan will fail also but we need failures in order to prove that the only way to achieve what the people want is to create a national health care policy; not leaving it in the hands of insurance companies whose primary motivator for being there in the first place is the most profit they can find to make legally (or illegally, if they can do it without getting caught).

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           AshtonFireflyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           +1

                           replyreport
                        2. 59

                           The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Live to Learn, we can not be concerned about their corruption if we are not willing, per Constitution Article 2.4 and Amendment 10, to demand their impeachment for their corruption. If you could keep your employer looking the other way while you take most of what is supposed to be his wouldn't you? That is why government is corrupt, We are their employer [Article 6] crying about what we are not doing the Constitution told to, fire them where they can never work in that capacity again.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Certainly not and I wouldn't trust anyone who said they would.

                              replyreport
                     2. 59

                        The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        The actual way is to eliminate insurance companies and establish the system where everyone needing any form of health care would have it paid for by our taxes as Article 1.8.1 require. Then make it unlawful for medical personnel not to practice healing rather than allowing them only to treat illnesses when there are some plants which would heal every disease known to man. What's needed is for pharmaceutical to study the plants to determine which ones do what.
                        
                        For that to happen We The People would have to control the government [see my hub The U.S. Constitution's Interpretation] as the constitution was written with the instructions of how its is to be done and have someone who will execute the Constitution as intended.

                        replyreport
               2. 72

                  Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  In any normal year my family would pay much less towards our own healthcare than we did in taxes that go towards universal healthcare, so for the time being it's actually me that's paying more money for other people's healthcare, and I live perfectly fine with that, thanks for asking.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     If the Constitution [article 1.8.1] was followed they would not need today insurance at all.

                     replyreport
               3. 59

                  The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I can easily live with it because the Constitution, Article 1.8.1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare [includes health care] of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" therefore the government should follow the constitution. Everyone pay taxes so use them according to the constitution.

                  replyreport
3. 59

   Live to Learnposted 7 years ago

   I didn't watch the video. But our government is founded on the principles of protecting our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, I'm afraid the health of the individual is an integral part of what our government is founded on. Health is a right. We must find a way to provide for health care for all without a free ride for the able.
   
   How we will go about achieving the goal is another think entirely. Had Europe not created so many problems during their imperial days and their world wars we might be closer to achieving that goal. Our world policies began in hopes of having an influence which would avert future wars. That effort has been subverted by corporate greed.
   
   Think what could be accomplished for the citizens of this country were not so much of our budget earmarked for defense and, sad to say, aggression (no matter the argument which can be made in defense of the validity of the aggression) and corporate interests made secondary to that of the citizens.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Living to Learn, It was founded on the "freedom" principle but the Constitution that was supposed to have been used to bring this nation into a state of freedom has never been used for doing it. Implement the constitution [see my hub "The U.S. Constitution's Spirit] and all of this nation's corruption would be eliminated since it require the taxes to be used for the people's welfare which include health care.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Great answer!

      replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   AHCA ,
   Obama Care   
   week # 1
   
   A lemonade stand opens down the street , little Suzy can't get enough customers to buy  any watered down lemonade  for $ 14.00  dollars a dixie cup  .     Suzy incorporates with US.Congress to MAKE everyone  buy more lemonade ,   new law - YOU have to buy lemonade  @  $  22 dollars a dixie cup  and  you have to buy one for  the other kid on the block who has no money  , or you will pay a one hundred dollar fine .
   
   Obama Care   
   Week # 8
   
   Lemonade is now  $ 52 .00 per dixie cup , plus tax , fees and delivery ,  everyone is fat on lemonade and Suzy is a wealthy billionaire  courting Mark Zuckerberg ,   lemons  on the vine are spoiling in the hot summer sun   , no one is paying Suzy for the lemons that they can get at  Walmart in the frozen food section for $ 1.00 a can .
   
   Update  Obama- care a resounding success  .!
   Week # 16
   
   Little Suzy  asks Trump to raise prices , make you buy TWO extra's for the other kids with no money  and adds extra watering down in process to create more lemonade stand jobs ,  ALL   using  rotten lemons .   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   .

   replyreport
5. 70

   AshtonFireflyposted 7 years ago

   As long as there are people profiting off sickness (pharmaceutical companies, etc.), we're not going to be able to afford it, and never have. To think that people are going to keep costs low because they're decent human beings is absurd, as is the notion that competition will drive down prices. It hasn't, and it won't.
     Why do people resent the idea of nationwide healthcare for EVERY one? Why?
     We're not talking about toasters or cars. We're talking about people's LIVES.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      We have the right to pursue happiness
      and health is part of happiness.
      PURSUE
      2 strive for, work toward, seek, search for, aim at/for, aspire to. (antonym: eschew.)
      
      And who, might we ask, is who is doing the striving?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         … and who, might we ask, is preventing anyone from striving?

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The government takes away my right to pursue health and happiness by fining me for not having health insurance.
            
            The fact is, I use my money to buy ORGANIC food, pay for my gym membership, so I can SWIM, and pay for dogs' food, so I can WALK them every day. So, I cannot contribute toward everyone else. I can pay only for myself.
            
            Now, if I were rich I would pay for my kids' gym memberships. Even then, its going a stretch because once your own children are independent why would you want to mess that up????
            
            So, you expect me to pay for the slob over there who watches TV all day and shops up at the nearest Junk Food Market and has a bad case of diabetes, hypertension, etc.?
            
            You expect me to happily contribute to the women throughout the nation who are addicted to coke/speed, who have kids who are all messed up and now require Adderall/Ritalin, etc.
            who have multiple sexual partners, and when they get pregnant again, well, thats MORE money from ME via the GOVERNMENT. (And even more government dispersed $$$ if their children have special needs!)
            
            No, I need my money for the sake of MY right to Pursue Happiness which includes Health.
            
            INSTEAD, due to being FORCED to buy Health Coverage with the punishment of being FINED, I have less money to buy nutritious food and maintain my exercise program.
            
            So, thanks for nothing.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               No, Kathryn L Hill. You are refusing to use the constitution;s power over government and give then the opportunity to make you think they are taking something from you when you are giving out the chance out of your ignorance of the meaning of the constitution. Read https://hubpages.com/politics/The-U-S-C … ons-Spirit and see if I am not correct.

               replyreport
      2. 59

         The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Better yet, Kathryn L Hill, Amendment 10 gives us the right to demand all governmental officials be impeached [Art. 2.4 & Amen. 14.4] for as little as a Misdemeanor then [Art.1.2.2 & 1.3.3] elect replacements.
         
         It is the masses' ignorance of the power we have over government which prevents them from striving.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ashton Firefly, We The People are the reason that is happening. All government officials are responsible to The People who are supposed to choose then [Article 1.2.2 & 1.3.3] and ask us what we need then legislate to accommodate the needs but We allow them to be chosen by Corporations who Bribe them into fulfilling their desires.
      
      The reason most people resist it is because few people even know what power the constitution has provided We The People with [people being being living walking and talking offsprings of man, not corporations designed to rip living people off of their little pice of financial income] over the government such as Impeaching the leading ones [Article 2.4] as authorized by amendment 10.

      replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Tough Love:
   Promotion of a person's welfare, esp. that of an addict, child, or criminal, by enforcing certain constraints on them, or requiring them to take responsibility for their actions. Dictionary

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      'Tough love' is often an excuse for selfishness, schadenfreude, and, sometimes, downright sadism.
      
      In this case, it is also an excuse for elevating the needs of healthcare shareholders above everyone else. But then, the last thirty years has been all about a pivot to the worship of wealth.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Marisa Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         +1

         replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Some people just love the government way too much!

   replyreport
8. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   They should give back the insurance money if the insurance was not used.
   Then no one would bother to create insurance policies and we would be much better off.

   replyreport
9. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Some of these wealthy people and groups of people have illegal practices which the government does not stop, or worse, benefits from.
   
   In principle, why should the wealthy be penalized (through taxation) for making money?
   Why would we not encourage the wealthy who provide economic advantages for all?
   
   In practice, the government actually encourages the injustices we witness in many ways.
   
   Q. What are these injustices?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      U.S. Constitution, Section 8.1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" along with Article XVI (Amendment 16 - Income Tax) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. say taxes are to be equal across the board with the article saying it is for the "general Welfare" so the reason is because the Constitution demands it.
      
      Read the constitution, the governors are responsible to us for what they do, if we refuse to take the action it DEMANDS us we can't blame the governors, the blame belongs on us. That is why I have an Impeachment order in Attorney General Session's office now awaiting a response. I'm doing what the constitution say, other's need to do the same.

      replyreport
10. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    This is NOT Tough Love.
    schadenfreude
    pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.
    
    http://www.parenting-child-development. … nting.html

    replyreport
11. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    "Ever since its inception, there has been resistance to the tough love parenting movement, primarily because people think it is harsh. If your teen is in danger of destroying his life, sometimes the most loving thing you can do is to be firm. Being tough doesn't have to mean being cruel. Cruelty is taking no action in the face of your teenager's impending self-destruction. Although it was probably inaction on your part that has helped create your teen's sense of self-entitlement today, you have a chance to help him turn things around. Do this in a way that shows that you mean business, but also lets him know that loving someone means that getting them to take responsibility for their life."
    
    FROM: http://www.parenting-child-development. … nting.html
    
    Although it was probably inaction on your part that has helped create your government's sense of self-entitlement today, you have a chance to help it turn things around. Do this in a way that shows that you mean business, and
    reminds the government to protect the rights of the people in strict accordance to original precepts of The Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Who are you talking to?
       Who is 'you'?
       WAB

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ha ha. whomever is too trusting of the govt.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             You wouldn't even have this forum without the various governments of the world.
             
             The pure research that made it possible would never have been done. Without the regulation that allows the common standards to hook up the world, the www would not exist.
             
             If you cannot grasp reality you will never have any power and nobody will ever take you seriously.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                "If you cannot grasp reality you will never have any power and nobody will ever take you seriously."
                Back at ya, Will Apse!
                BTW
                Apse
                "1 a large semicircular or polygonal recess in a church, arched or with a domed roof, typically at the eastern end, and usually containing the altar." D

                replyreport
    2. 59

       Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       What that has to do with this discussion? I suppose you tell the cancer patient who can't afford the treatment they are in jeopardy of being a freeloader and you are just denying them a chance at life out of 'tough love'.
       
       
       
       Translation for this discussion: Denying medical help is, in and of itself, an action. A loving one. Sure the guy may die but he will die knowing you don't think he is a free loader.
       
       
       
       Translation for the purposes of this discussion:
       
       Denying medical coverage gives him ample time to think (when the pain abates enough to do it) how it would have been nice if he could have found a job at higher than minimum wage so that he could have afforded an insurance policy so that he would be accepted for treatment (although his deductible would have bankrupted him). But, after getting better, he could have the time to ponder how to improve the American health care system and write about it (that is if he could find electricity to hook up his computer by the bridge he was living under since he'd lost everything to bankruptcy some time after the treatments.
       
       
       
       Translation: Hey, you are personally responsible for the mess that is the entire American health care system.  You shut up, die if need be, but for heaven sake let the government know that you don't expect them to protect or consider the needs of the individual citizen. Corporate greed should always take precedent.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          +1

          replyreport
12. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Obama Care is the Fed. Govt.'s Money Tree. Health is not a right, its a personal responsibility to one's self, loved ones and family members ... and no one else.
    Health care Insurance is  N O T  a Right ...
    AT ALL!

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Disagree. Access to medical care is a right. Unless, you'd like to see dead bodies laying outside of the hospitals because they were denied admittance since they had no insurance.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          No one guarantees the ability to survive. NO ONE!!!!!!
             For instance, my great grandfather was struck dead by lightening on the golf course!

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Well, since you are simply going to post nonsensical comments I'll leave you to it in peace.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Why is it nonsensical? Its the fact of life. No one is guaranteed even one more day!
                Death is a fact of life, as we all are aware. Perhaps some are not (aware); and that is the definition of nonsensical.
                
                nonsensical
                1 meaningless, senseless, illogical. ANTONYMS logical, rational.
                2 foolish, insane, stupid, idiotic, illogical, irrational, senseless, absurd, silly, inane, harebrained, ridiculous, ludicrous, preposterous; crazy, crackpot, nutty; daft. ANTONYMS sane, sensible.
                
                But Yeah, I'm done too…
                for NOW!

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   No one is guaranteed one more day. That is true. I'll just put you down as not the good samaritan.

                   replyreport
                   1. 81

                      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      Oh I am the good Samaritan when I feel like it! The govt is not to force me to be one.

                      replyreport
    2. 59

       The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       The Constitution say it is "a United States Government's responsibility" when it required it to "to promote the general Welfare”

       replyreport
13. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Health Care Insurance is not a Right. Especially if the means of providing this "Right" (handout for some) relies on financial extraction from We The People.
    It is not the American way.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       You are correct, it is not the American's way because America ignores the constitution 95% of the time. The Constitution made it a RIGHT America's government has ignored.

       replyreport
14. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    PS Stop over-eating/drinking starchy sugary carbs and processed non-nutritious foods if you have diabetes, and then you won't die in front of the hospital just because you don't have insurance. Sheesh!
    
      PS my insurance WAS affordable before the Govt. takeover.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, please share that with those who have conditions like MS, Lupus, various cancers. Etc. I'm sure it's somehow their fault they are ill.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          To forcibly extract $$$ from some to assist others is not the American Way. Low cost insurance is the American way. Free Market Insurance including Laws to prohibit/prevent hospitals and doctors from overcharging wherever possible is the American way.

          replyreport
15. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    BTW
    Since when are doctors' offices and hospitals promoters of good health. Seems to me they are the places to go when you have blown it really bad!  When you no longer have health due to your own negligence. Your own ignorance. Your own carelessness.

    replyreport
    1. 72

       Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Has no one you care about ever been diagnosed with an illness completely out of their control? That must be nice.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah, me. I BOUGHT monthly insurance to take care of a case of cancer. It totally saved my life.
          I paid for it. Happy to do so. It was a PPO for $300 a month with Blue Shield. Very affordable.
          
          Of course that was in '07-08. I kept it until Obama Care went into effect. It then doubled. I couldn't afford $600 a month. It had been excellent coverage. Then everything changed.
          
          side note: My bronze category catastopic-only Covered California insurance is worth $900.00/mo.!!!! Almost a thousand dollars! But don't worry, others are paying most of my way.
          
          Additional meandering thoughts:
          Thats more than ten thousand a year! just for me … and I'm staying safe and sound! So all that money should go back to me and all those people who are covering me! Oh what? the govt. needs it.
          Federal Money Tree.

          replyreport
          1. 72

             Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I'm sorry to hear that and I'm glad you're okay.
             
             But with 40% of your country making less than $1,700/month, I'd argue that $300 per month is not that affordable.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Then you've got to be proactive. In my case I was a lifeguard and water aerobics coach at the time. I was soaking in too much chlorine, sunshine and overdoing chips and yogurt and there was a lot of stress in other areas of my life. Plus my hormones were out of whack due to being past just menopause. Now, if someone could have done some appropriate tests,(estrogen/progesterone, cortisone levels, etc.,) these conditions could have been detected and I could have stopped many of these behaviors to stay healthy. We are not doing enough research to contribute to ways to stay proactively healthy. If we did not focus so much on treating symptoms after the fact, rather than prevention, we would not have the health crisis we Americans seem to be having.

                replyreport
             2. 80

                colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                What country are you from Aime?

                replyreport
                1. 72

                   Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Look up.

                   replyreport
                   1. 81

                      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      Canada
                      
                        A Canadian Perspective of Socialized Medicine
                      
                      https://americanvision.org/6618/a-canad … -medicine/
                      
                      
                      
                      "I am a dual citizen of both Canada and the United States. I was born and raised in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, while frequently visiting my father’s side of the family in Ferndale, Washington. When it comes to healthcare I have seen both countries—their freedoms and limitations, as well as the effects of those things—in a personal way.
                      
                      First, Canadians have no understanding of what socialism is, never mind why it might be a bad idea. We know we are taxed to death. We know what the numbers say on our paychecks; we know we only take home a fraction of what we worked so hard to make. Yet we call our health care “free,” as if it had no cost to us. Somehow Canadians aren’t connecting the dots. We are told that getting robbed blind by our government is for the greater good of the general public, and that is all we know. We seem to be okay with that, only for lack of education, I fear."

                      replyreport
                      1. 72

                         Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         Usually when people say "free" healthcare they mean at point of use. It certainly is nice to have something come up and not have to worry about deductibles or how much it's going to cost to deal with it, instead just going in and doing what needs to be done - so yes, it feels free at those times but certainly come tax time we know it's not.  I'm still a big fan of our system.

                         replyreport
                         1. 81

                            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            How COME????
                            The writer went on to explain:
                            "In my own case, I was a teenager hemorrhaging in ER and waited several hours until a doctor could finally see me. I waited another eight hours before I was treated. Since that time, I have been unable to deliver any of my children in my own city hospital because the maternity ward was shut down years ago, due to cut backs. I had to travel to another city while in labor. That was fun. And now, there are serious attempts to shut down the entire hospital altogether. No hospital for the city of Mission. A brand new hospital was opened in our sister city Abbotsford, and within a month of it’s opening, I read article upon article in the local newspaper of how it was over-congested, there weren’t enough beds, and patients were being transferred to yet other hospitals."
                            
                            You, yourself, have zero to complain about?

                            replyreport
                            1. 72

                               Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                               BECAUSE of literally what I just said. People don't have worry about how much it's going to cost them to go to the ER, or take their kids to be seen and risk missing something sinister, or having to pay more for their insurance because they were born with some disease they had no choice in contracting.
                               
                               I actually have no idea if we even pay more taxes on average than you guys down there but I'm cool paying a little more if it gives people that peace of mind.
                               
                               Edit: to address the rest of it, no, I have never experienced anything like that at all. When you go to the ER you get triaged. If you're hemhorraging blood you get seen immediately, I'm guessing they've improved the system since this person was a teenager and had that experience. I've taken my daughter to the ER twice and both times we've waited a LONG time because her condition wasn't that serious (we took her as a precaution) and people who came in with more serious issues were put through right away. And even that LONG time was approximately 3 hours.
                               
                               When I gave birth they did run out of rooms - private rooms, that is. I had to share a room. Not the end of the world.

                               replyreport
                               1. 59

                                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                  I just googled. It says you guys pay about 42% of wages in various federal taxes. That's a lot.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 72

                                     Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                     Not sure where that stat comes from but these are the official figures from the Government of Canada, as verified by me, a Canadian paying taxes at these rates:
                                     
                                     15% on the first $45,916 of taxable income, +
                                     20.5% on the next $45,915 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $45,916 up to $91,831), +
                                     26% on the next $50,522 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $91,831 up to $142,353), +
                                     29% on the next $60,447 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $142,353 up to $202,800), +
                                     33% of taxable income over $202,800

                                     replyreport
                   2. 80

                      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      Heaven!

                      replyreport
                      1. 72

                         Aime Fposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         Hockey, good lager, an extremely attractive man seeing to my needs as a citizen... yup, it's heaven.

                         replyreport
                         1. 81

                            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            < I actually have no idea if we even pay more taxes on average than you guys down there but I'm cool paying a little more if it gives people that peace of mind.>
                            
                            good lager and rose colored glasses often go hand in hand …

                            replyreport
    2. 59

       Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       You sound like a preacher I know who claims everyone ill must have sinned. It's ridiculous and insulting to millions of people.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I am addressing hospitals and doctors and the modern day inclination to treat after-the-fact. The doctors know they are ripping us off in many ways.  But, they can't resist because, after all, they are sitting pretty as long as we don't "know any better."
          
          PS "Affordable" Govt. (no competiton) Insurance benefits hospitals and hospital staff/doctors, mainly.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I will agree on some level. I think people put too much faith in doctors and prescription drugs when the healthiest thing to do in many cases is just wait 24 hours. It is usually better. I research my symptoms and go for home remedies, for the most part. But, I am healthy and always have been. I can't walk in someone else's shoes but I am not going to join in your blame game. I know quite a few people who live as healthy as possible and have battled cancer. Some won. Some lost. I know a woman who has been diagnosed with lupus. Her life has been a misery. I doubt she did anything to bring that on. Babies born with problems didn't lead an unhealthy lifestyle.
             
             Shit happens Kathryn. Cities don't upgrade their water pipes and people get lead poisoning. Restaurants buy the cheapest grade of ground meat they can, coming from multiple sources around the world and people get food poisoning. People have accidents. Corporations bypass FDA requirements and consumers get poisoned. Cancer has been shown to be luck of the genetic draw.
             
             But, hey. Let's just all take your word for it and assume people are jerks who don't eat right and make bad life choices. No access to health care sounds about right. Let's let them die off and those such as yourself will inherit the earth. It will be a dark world, lacking compassion or consideration for others less fortunate but you'll own it. Good luck enjoying it.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                no no. I am for everyone being strong and healthy!
                So they can work and afford a private-company health insurance policy. 
                
                (Private insurance companies compete and therefore keep costs down.)

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   I'm interested in everyone being healthy so they can survive the soon arriving end of this world. To each their own.

                   replyreport
                   1. 81

                      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      Way to go, The O Nature Boy.

                      replyreport
    3. 59

       The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       How can people schooled {aka brainwashed} into believing what the government controlled media say? 90% of the people believe their government will not deceive them because the brainwashing is so deeply engraved in them and the government's media tells us to "trust your doctor" what do you expect? The people blow it because they are taught nor to listen to their own reasoning but to the brainwashing media. That's why we are sent to school so early, the younger the brainwashing begins the sooner they have control.
       
       This is the 21st century, it is time to wake up or follow the 95% of those destined to discarnate in the next 11 years.

       replyreport
16. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    And now the govt. has made it it harder for me to buy organic food (did I mention that?) because I am required to pay for (worthless) insurance and therefore can't pay for store bought organic vegetables. So, I am tending an organic vegetable garden. But, my water bills are quite high, therefore.

    replyreport
17. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    "The masses aren’t connecting the dots.
    
    This “free” healthcare is not free. The money has to come from somewhere. It doesn’t grow on trees; it doesn’t just appear out of thin air, although this has been attempted via fiat stimulus injections. No, it comes from us. Looking us square in the eyes, the Canadian government has reached right into our pockets, pulled out our wallets and taken what they wanted. No questions asked. This is beyond theft.
    
    We have become economic hostages. I was under the impression that slavery was done away with long ago, however we have a new form of slavery. We are slaves to our government and it’s publicly funded programs. We welcomed it, we’ve preached it, and we school our kids in it."

    replyreport
    1. 59

       The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       That I agree with but most of what you say I don't. 
       
       Since we pay taxes and why not eliminate all of the different healthcare programs already being paid for by our taxes and implement the one Burnie Sanders wrote which would cost even less than the ones we already pay for.

       replyreport
18. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    "… We pay not only in tax money, but also in lost time and lack of care. We wait many hours in the ER waiting room with broken limbs, etc., only to be told there are no more beds available in our brand new, top-of-the-line hospital. In my own case, I was a teenager hemorrhaging in ER and waited several hours until a doctor could finally see me. I waited another eight hours before I was treated. Since that time, I have been unable to deliver any of my children in my own city hospital because the maternity ward was shut down years ago, due to cut backs. I had to travel to another city while in labor. That was fun. And now, there are serious attempts to shut down the entire hospital altogether. No hospital for the city of Mission. A brand new hospital was opened in our sister city Abbotsford, and within a month of it’s opening, I read article upon article in the local newspaper of how it was over-congested, there weren’t enough beds, and patients were being transferred to yet other hospitals."
    
    https://americanvision.org/6618/a-canad … -medicine/

    replyreport
19. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    We Americans don't call  "PPACA,” “ACA,” or “Obamacare” for what it is:
    
                      Socialized Medicine

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Well, I suppose if they regulated the drug industry in a manner similar to utilities, where they were allowed a certain amount of profit and weren't allowed to gouge people.....if they set limits on costs allowed for procedures and office visits....if they could find a way to make the costs fair and equitable then maybe we wouldn't be clamoring for change. As it stands most Americans are one health crisis shy of bankruptcy. The costs are skyrocketing, the insurance premiums are skyrocketing, plan benefits are dwindling and the rest of the world gets cheap drugs (while we pay an arm and a leg for them)
       
       Something's got to give. Greed has ensured that the average citizen gets less and less while paying more and more.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I agree:  to be able to implement free-market, private company health Insurance, we need to make and enforce LAWS!
           
          A. Limit costs allowed for procedures and office visits.
          B. Make the costs fair and equitable.
          C. Limit profit amounts
          D. ?
          
          Corruption is killing us!
          However, not enforcing/following the law is the root cause of most evils.

          replyreport
20. 0

    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    Health Care is-- NOT   a R-I-G-H-T ,
    
    What it is however is--- a privilege ,   Because some want it for free , doesn't make it a right either .  Canada for instance , has ONE TENTH  of the population of America , almost the same essential land mass , an incredible amount of  natural resources ,  and far ,far more opportunity for free health care because of these economic and population  facts .  There are  NO legitimate comparisons between America and Canada  that are valid in use by liberal entitlement seekers .

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       … so you think Socialized Medicine is fine for Canada? Did you read the posts above featuring comments regarding Canada's "health-care" situation?
       https://americanvision.org/6618/a-canad … -medicine/

       replyreport
21. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    I support single payer health care for all,  but I do not believe health,  or health care,  is a right. However, I  support providing health care to everyone because I  believe we have the means and ability to do so, and to NOT do so is against my moral principles.  Therefore,  I  cast my vote for those who will prioritize providing  univerdal health care over, say, tax breaks for the wealthy or outrageous defense spending.  What are your priorities? That's what it comes down to.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Who is the "we" that has the means and ability to provide health care for everyone?  Those with the guns and willingness to take resources from everyone around them?
       
       But you're correct; it comes down to priorities.  Do we wish to play Robin Hood, stealing from one to give to another?  Are we willing to give up our ethics in order to "help" others?
       
       (Tax breaks are not gifts: rather they are a refusal to take even more from those that are already paying far more than their share)

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          As I said, I vote for those who support it. If enough people do the same, it will happen. If not, it won't.

          replyreport
          1. 77

             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Unfortunately, you are likely correct.  In this country the majority has all too often run rampant over the minority, from slavery to prohibition to gay bashing.  Requiring forced charity from others because we don't want to provide it from our own pocketbooks is more of the same.  We have found that we can vote ourselves "bread and circuses" at the expense of others, and are all too willing to do so.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                So, when we choose elected officials based upon our values, and then they enact policies based upon those values, you consider that to be running rampant over the minority? Remember, we have a constitution to protect the rights of all citizens. It isn't perfect but it's pretty darn good. Taxation with representation is not forced charity. I don't like giving my tax dollars to defense contractors but I don't whine about it being theft or forced. I just vote for those I hope will spend tax dollars more closely in line with my views.

                replyreport
                1. 77

                   wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Is it good?  Does the constitution protect the rights of the individual?  Can we say it does when some individuals are forced to "contribute" thousands of times what others do towards the operation of the country?  When a few are forced to support hundreds of others? 
                   
                   While you may feel that defense is unnecessary and you get nothing for your tax dollars there, the large majority disagree with you.  But very few will try and make a case for providing health care for everyone as being something of value to those that are footing the bill - outside of the altruism that they are forced to exhibit, and somehow that doesn't seem to be quite the same thing as providing for national defense.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      If you 're a citizen of this country, then you consent to abide by the laws enacted by your duly elected representatives. If you disagree, you can work to get like-minded people in office to vote for less taxation. It is not likely you'll get everything you want. You'll have to live with it, work to change it, or opt out. That's how it works.

                      replyreport
                      1. 77

                         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         That's what I said, with the addition that majorities have become all powerful and willing to take whatever they want from others.  Sad, but a fact of democracy and not unusual at all.  Most, if not all, democracies end up that way - a large majority taking whatever they wish from a smaller minority.  Voting themselves bread and circuses at the expense of someone else.  And likely the beginning of the end for that particular democracy.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            I see you are still prone to mischaracterizing a position or issue to make it easier to argue against.
                            
                            "....majorities have become all powerful and willing to take whatever they want from others."A "majority" cannot enact laws to rake whatever they want and you know it.

                            replyreport
                            1. 77

                               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                               You think the minority enacts laws, with the majority opposing them? 
                               
                               Hint: it isn't the minority paying for it that has raised taxes to provide "free" health care.  It is the majority, those getting the money, those willing to spend what others have earned that enacted those laws.

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                  Actually, it was our duly elected representatives, not "the majority." We are not a direct democracy.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 77

                                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                     In theory they work as one - the legislature passes laws the majority wants.  And in most cases that is indeed how it works.  Not always, and there is always the congressman buying votes from the minority, but if the majority objects enough (and party rulers don't object) they will follow suit.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 0

                                        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                        I think you're really reaching to try to back up your claim that the majority takes whatever it wants from others, which is what you originally stated. It doesn't "take" whatever it wants, no matter how you try to frame it. A duly elected body enacting  laws requiring taxes be paid is how our government works. You whine about paying taxes for health care, and call it theft or forced charity, but seem fine with paying taxes for defense. I've never once seen you complain about being forced to pay for the weapons and manpower used to kill people. You're only butt hurt about expenditures you personally resent and are couching it in some faux philosophical opposition to being forced to provide charity to others. If you're upset about being forced to pay for one thing, then you should be outraged about being forced to pay for everything. Otherwise, you are just whining because  other voters' values won out this time.
                                        
                                        I'll complain mightily when the GOP votes to deny health care to all while simultaneously giving the defense agencies more than they even think they need, but I won't pretend that I am being forced to pay.

                                        report
                                        1. 77

                                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                           You misunderstand.  I feel defense is necessary for the country to exist and thus we all benefit from it.  I disagree (often) about the amount being spent and where it is spent, but am willing to acknowledge that I am not an expert in either military matters or foreign affairs - any objection I might have must be tempered with that.
                                           
                                           But when money is taken from me to benefit an individual, and ONLY that individual (health care, food stamps, section 8 housing, WIC, etc. etc. etc.) it becomes a different matter, and if I have no say in whether I shall give that money (MY money) to someone else purely for their personal benefit then it becomes theft.  Ethical, moral theft, that is; certainly not legal theft for as you point out that IS the law of the land.  The majority can set tax rates at whatever level they want, they can set high rates for only a few (forcing that few to support the many) and they can do as they wish with what is taken.
                                           
                                           Legal does not make right any more than "might makes right".  That the majority has the law on their side, that they have the guns and power; none of that makes it ethical or moral to play Robin Hood.

                                           report
22. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    <Requiring forced charity from others because we don't want to provide it from our own pocketbooks …> wilderness
    
    Actually, I'm sure people are happy to give to charity and assist family and friends, but the F.G. wants to put some green on its Money Tree. What better way than forcing "charity?"
    
    Charity
    1 nonprofit organization, voluntary organization, charitable institution; fund, trust, foundation.
    2 financial assistance, aid, welfare, relief, financial relief; handouts, gifts, presents, largesse; alms.
    3 philanthropy, humanitarianism, humanity, altruism, public-spiritedness, social conscience, benevolence, beneficence,

    replyreport
23. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    And we put up with government-enforced financial extraction through Obamacare mandates and fines/taxes.
    
    
    W H Y ?????

    replyreport
24. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    I vote for going back to private health insurance with tight enforcement of specific laws to promote justice.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       You mean what we had before that wasn't working?

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/part- … rld-war-ii

          replyreport
          1. 81

             Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             From the above: "The employer-provided health insurance industry that exists today is largely the unintended result of a temporary tax break from the early 1940s. This tax break became the basis for U.S. *healthcare."
             *Healthcare Insurance

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                "Prior to World War II, most Americans paid for their own medical care, either directly to the provider, or beginning in the 1930s, through the Blue Cross nonprofit health insurance entities which were created to offer guaranteed service for a fixed fee. Back then, health insurance really was insurance - providing coverage only for major items like hospitalizations that people could not afford to pay for themselves. All other expenses were paid out-of-pocket directly to the provider.
                
                The Birth of Employer-Provided Health Insurance
                
                During World War II, the federal government was wary of post-war inflation. The administration saw the terrible devastation hyperinflation wreaked on post-World War I Germany and they were determined to hold it at bay through wage and price controls which they instituted during the war. In reaction to the wage controls, many labor groups planned to go on strike en masse.  In order to avert the strike, in a concession to the labor groups, the War Labor Board exempted employer-paid health benefits from wage controls and income tax.
                
                This historical accident created a tax advantage that drove enormous demand for employer-provided health insurance plans over the previously more common individual health insurance. Employers received a 100% tax deduction while the benefits employees received were exempt from federal, state, and city taxation."
                https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/part- … rld-war-ii
                
                The free market aspect was removed at this point.

                replyreport
25. 85

    GA Andersonposted 7 years ago

    Hey guys, (Wilderness and PrettyPanther), In following your exchanges, I find myself in an enviable position. A confidently placed foot in both camps. I agree with both of you. Nirvana!
    
    In my view, Prettypanther is exactly right. Ours is a representative government, and we elect our representatives democratically. I believe any society of people has the right to set the rules for itself. And if the majority of a society, (though its representatives), wants to pay for a minority's, (segment, not person, of course), daycare and pampers - then they have every right to make that into law. That another minority segment doesn't like that is just too bad - they do have choices.
    
    And the great part is that I also think Wilderness is exactly right. When that majority of representatives act out of political self-interest, (the politics of the party, and the vote-buying by passing out freebies), instead of their constituent's interest - then his point of the "majority" taking from the minority is exactly right. And his point about providing what he sees as excessive welfare support, (the free daycare and pampers perhaps?), turning into "legalized theft is also a valid point.
    
    Here is why I think I can be in both camps and still be right; I think PrettyPanther is talking about the the mechanics of how our system works. The foundation of our governmental process. Unfortunately, I also think her position needs a bit of Wilderness' 'reality of politics' applied to her foundational mechanics to understand the very valid criticisms of those mechanics in operation.
    
    I think one of my rawest pressure-point examples might illustrate the shakiness of PrettyPanther's confidence; Obamacare!  The ACA did not have the majority support it needed to become law - via the people's consent as expressed by their representatives!
    
    ... until politics kicked in. There was not a majority of the people's representatives to pass the law until the payoff's and political deals started turning votes. I am sure most remember the headlines; Representative A is a "No" vote - until the Feds agree to kick in $300 million, (in reality it was $600 million),  for their state or constituents. Representative B was a "No" vote until the Fed promised to pay for their state's Medicaid expansion. etc. etc.
    
    Your democratically elected representative model just failed PrettyPanther. The majority that made this law was a political majority - not the people's majority. That is the reality of Wilderness' point, and the weak link in your confidence.
    
    But Wilderness... PrettyPanther is right. Ours is a representative system. So, as real and legitimate as your points are, they are still just complaints. Simple choices; Fix it, bear it, or leave it.
    
    Don't misunderstand me, I am with you all the way. I agree with your perspective. We just have to "fix it" so that we can share PrettyPanther's rationalization that we are governed by our own choices.
    
    Electing 'a Donald Trump'  president is a first step. Now we just have to see if this Donald Trump is what we voted for. If not, then we need to repeat that first step.
    
    
    GA

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with you, but increasing defense spending beyond what the defense experts recommend is also a political move to placate certain political factions, so I fail to see why you would think Trump could be a "fix it."
       
       The development of any agreement or law involving disparate groups of people involves compromise , power struggles, and favors to reach a consensus. This is the case in business, religion, education and other sectors--not just the legislative branch of government. That is why us citizens must take the time to educate ourselves about issues and candidates and get involved in politics. We must insist that good people be able to survive and thrive in the political arena. In the current political atmosphere, it is hard for good people to survive in politics,

       replyreport
       1. 85

          GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Hi PrettyPanther, your "defense" point was Wilderness', not mine. While I agree with his perspective of the need for a strong defense force, I don't give it carte blanche support. I recall too many "military industrial complex" boondoggles and pork barrel projects for that.
          
          As a note of clarity... I said "a Trump" type selection, not necessarily this Trump selection. By that I mean the election of a non-politics as usual president. A president dedicated to Amerric'a best interests, not his or his party's best interest. We have had that for the past 29 years. (yep, that means the post-Reagan era, I am a big Pres. Reagan fan)
          
          The "fix it' choice I advocate is one that addresses the points Wilderness makes - politicians acting for their own good - not America's.
          
          For instance; I started a thread awhile back that advocated our elected representatives must represent their constituent's perspectives when making national governmental decisions. I noted that in the end, they may have to decide contrary to their constituent's desires - for the good of the nation, but that at least their constituent's desires should be their guiding light.
          
          But consider how often, (I would love to bring up the passage of the ACA again), we have seen political, not constituents, motives as the driving force behind a vote.
          
          ps. I hope you check-out a thread I will start about my latest read; "Tip O'Neil, Man of the House", to see the type of politics I am talking about.
          
          GA

          replyreport
          1. 0

             PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Your clarification is noted and understood, and I will definitely check out your thread. Shall I start one about uneducated white voters? I am fairly  confident it would draw your attention. LOL

             replyreport
             1. 85

                GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Ouch! Hopefully you only see me as meeting one of those descriptors. But I will keep the snake-bite kit handy for when you do start that thread.
                
                GA

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Oops, you might have misinterpreted my joke. I was recalling a couple of times when you did not like my use of the term "uneducated" when a more accurate term would have been "non-college educated." I certainly don't think you are uneducated. My apologies for the lousy attempt at humor.

                   replyreport
                   1. 85

                      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      You sound like my wife; she says I never remember anything. ;-)
                      
                      But I do recall now that you reminded me, and ... you got me. I will try to be more alert to my past recriminations in future discussions.
                      
                      Between your "uneducated" and Credence2's "enlightened," I have my hands full.
                      
                      GA

                      replyreport
                2. 81

                   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   --->survival of the fittest vs survival of the un-fit.  Does socialism and practices incorporating socialistic means contribute to the former or the latter?
                   Liberals are so quick to erase the natural order of things with their "compassion." Then one here, for some unknown reason, mentions "uneducated white males."
                   huh ????
                   
                   (oh, I now see the explanation, but I leave this here anyway)

                   replyreport
26. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Also, in the interest of reaping the benefits of competition, we should allow individuals and businesses access to country-wide insurance companies, rather than limiting access to state insurance companies.
    
    Unfortunately, liberals do not see the long term effects of universal healthcare Insurance. Their leaders promote the ideal of compassion because is so easy to rally around. So, they use compassion to promote socialism and thereby create their (huge) power base. This major Democratic power base, which poor President Trump is up against, stands in the way of returning and restoring healthcare insurance to the free market (with revised laws.)

    replyreport
27. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    GA Anderson, you hit the nail on the head with this post:
    
    "For instance; I started a thread awhile back that advocated our elected representatives must represent their constituent's perspectives when making national governmental decisions."
    
    You wisely explained: "...they may have to decide contrary to their constituent's desires - for the good of the nation, but that at least their constituent's desires should be their guiding light."
    
    And this astute observation: ~~~~~> "But consider how often, (I would love to bring up the passage of the ACA again), we have seen political, not constituents, motives as the driving force behind a vote."
    
    Thank you, GA Anderson!

    replyreport
    1. 85

       GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       You are welcome. But it is not an unusual thought. We see many discussions here that boil down to that very point. It is the reader's willingness to consider this that determines whether there is a conversation or just an exchange of partisan rants.
       
       GA

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Does anyone believe that the ACA WOULD pass again ?    Obama -Care under a name that wasn't as P.C.  popular   ?
          Poulson -Care [Pat }
          Nader -Care
          Huckabee -Care
          MaCain - Care
          Jeb-  Care     
          Sanders -Care
          Warren- Care   
          
          The Obama phenomena  was just that ,P.C.  AND I think that he knew that , A country so hyped on electing the first offered black president that they would accept anything ,  that he took extremely liberal shocking liberties with  his Alinsky - Chompski  mentality and  liberal  mind wanderings .

          replyreport