Prediction for Tomorrow.

[jagman]

My prediction is as follows. Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will find the Affordable Healthcare Act Unconstitutional, Specifically the mandate. (5-4) :jester:

[Lost Soul]

Let us pray.

[Mulder]

I'll look on-line all day tomorrow & see what happens.

[modwiz]

My prediction is as follows. Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will find the Affordable Healthcare Act Unconstitutional, Specifically the mandate. (5-4) :jester:

I want you to be right, Jagman. I pray that is will be so. Unfortunately, the same USSC that passed Citizens United, demonstrating a business over people attitude, would be showing a schizophrenic nature by making your prediction true. We can always hope they do it out of spite to stick it to Obama. I do not care what their motivation is, as long as they strike it down.

[foreverfan]

But that would put an end to Obamamaina.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/TN7lW8_-w6I/AAAAAAAALXw/X3w5U3tvMxo/s400/obama+mania.+obamacartoon.jpg

[sdv]

I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

[scarletfire]

I think it will be struck down too, although I have no idea why...like modwiz pointed out the USSC passed citizens united and members are far from progressive. One would think that these folks, beholden to corporate insurance types would love the idea of every American FORCED to be their customer.

[GCS1103]

I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

Reading further into the Health Care Act you will also find that elderly people who have a terminal illness will be subject to bureaucratic panels (infamously, but correctly called, death panels) that will determine if they are entitled to have their treatment covered. It's based on how much money would be spent by the insurance company vs. the anticipated length of time this person can be expected to live with this illness. It's an insidious piece of legislation, but our legislators knew that. That's why they exempted themselves from this Act. It doesn't apply to them.

[Carmody]

I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.


The 'universal' health care of other countries (Not-usa) is tied to government coffers/taxation..... and has nothing to do with private insurance companies.

There may be feeders and greeders in the given universal health care systems of other countries out side of the USA..but..they were not formed from the ground up to be a feeding trough for insurance companies and private interests.

That is the difference. It is fundamental and at the formation and 'in-situ' actions and directions of the given universal systems. Due to this, most universal health care systems still have some basic level of sound functionality.

What the USA systems seems to be proposing is that the incredible level of animalistic feeding upon the public be stepped up a notch to the point that servitude to private interests be made a legal (and punishable if not adhered to) mandate, in one more additional direction, in a very public and non-hidden way..

[we-R-one]

I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

The 'universal' health care of other countries (Not-usa) is tied to government coffers/taxation..... and has nothing to do with private insurance companies.

There may be feeders and greeders in the given universal health care systems of other countries out side of the USA..but..they were not formed from the ground up to be a feeding trough for insurance companies and private interests.

That is the difference. It is fundamental and at the formation and 'in-situ' actions and directions of the given universal systems. Due to this, most universal health care systems still have some basic level of sound functionality.

What the USA systems seems to be proposing is that the incredible level of animalistic feeding upon the public be stepped up a notch to the point that servitude to private interests be made a legal (and punishable if not adhered to) mandate, in one more additional direction, in a very public and non-hidden way..

Very true, and I'll add to this, it's not about health care it's about controlling the masses.

[Kimberley]

************

FYI in Massachusetts Heath insurance is already mandatory ... thanks, not, to Mitt Romney...


The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,[1][2], enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[3] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid). The law also partially subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL. These subsidies and FPL-related calculations affect very few of the over 6,000,000 people (see Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy quarterly Key Indicators report), over 90% of whom had healthcare insurance prior to the enactment of the law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

[conk]

Over-turned or not, it does not matter. The result will still be the same, a medical paradigm that is designed to kill, not heal. Universal care is just a means to drag more and more customers into the furnace.

[kcbc2010]

I agree that Western medicine doesn't have all the answers. However, a lot of doctors have come out and said that they will close up shop if the USSC holds up the mandate.

I don't think we can judge every doctor in the US medical establishment. We don't know their motives or their hearts. The "why" in why they joined the profession in the first place. Money isn't inherently bad. Money is a tool that people (who are inherently flawed and have free will) use for good or evil. (Yes, I like Ayn Rand.....how could you tell?) Yes, a lot of docs have sold out to Big Pharma, but a lot of docs really just want to practice medicine and we need to remember that docs are people who make individual choices (just like the rest of us).

Ideally, I don't have a problem with universal care because isn't that what we talk about here - everyone having their health and well-being taken care of w/o money being of major importance.

However, the pragmatist in me realizes that until TPTB are defeated, the system we have is the system we've got. The system in the US is broke, but the way our "leaders" decided to go about fixing it was just a huge over-reach. Remember this was passed with no Republican votes whatsoever. If we are going to make major changes in the way we do health care, then you'd think that both parties would have been convinced and gotten more people on board with it. As it is, Dems aren't running on their vote for this health care package - especially, if they are Blue Dogs from swing/conservative districts. However, that's not really the point of the conversation - Sorry. I just really hate ObamaCare and hope that the judges do the right thing and get rid of the mandate.

[Dennis Leahy]

I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.
If you want a bigger, clearer picture (IMO) check out Mad As Hell Doctors (http://madashelldoctors.com/) website. The bill was written by pharmaceutical company and health insurance company lobbyists. It protects the interests of the (malevolent) industries, not citizens and not health. Besides, (mostly due to the pharmaceutical companies' chemical weapons of mass health destruction), the US has absolutely awful health care, compared to much of the rest of the world. So, even eliminating health insurance companies and allowing US citizens full access to current "state-of-the-art" health care in a 'single payer' system (which is what Mad As Hell Doctors and other single payer proponents want), citizens overall health from infant mortality to longevity would probably become even worse.

I contend that alternative therapies (with a huge emphasis on herbs for now, and sound/energy healing as emerging technology), and extreme regulation of pharmaceutical drugs, and official denouncement and vilification of GMO, over-refined foods, factory/'ranching' tortured animal products, and the fast-'food' industry's unhealth-food, and embracing organic foods is the pathway to health - not access to the current medical system as practiced in the US.

Dennis
p.s. If I ever have a gravestone, it would be funny to put one of my run-on sentences on it, filling the face of the stone, and then continuing around the side of the stone and onto the back. ;~)

[Dennis Leahy]

Over-turned or not, it does not matter. The result will still be the same, a medical paradigm that is designed to kill, not heal. Universal care is just a means to drag more and more customers into the furnace.
Conk, I need to take 'succinct' lessons from you!

Dennis

[WyoSeeker]

Reading further into the Health Care Act you will also find that elderly people who have a terminal illness will be subject to bureaucratic panels (infamously, but correctly called, death panels) that will determine if they are entitled to have their treatment covered. It's based on how much money would be spent by the insurance company vs. the anticipated length of time this person can be expected to live with this illness. It's an insidious piece of legislation, but our legislators knew that. That's why they exempted themselves from this Act. It doesn't apply to them.


Your point is very true and it is an insidious piece of legislation, but this is happening now by the insurance companies themselves. If you've ever been ill in the US then you've already experienced it.

So the only question is do you want your physical health and well being reduced to a profit equation by the US government or the corporate bodies that own it?

[pilotsimone]

delete post

[sdv]

Thank you so much to the Americans who have added to my education on this issue. I wish you well in this fight, and in finding and fixing the root causes of the problem.

To me, the fundamental issue seems to be that healthcare is placed in the private sector and is thus based on profit, plus ...

I live in a country that has a two-tier system - public health (provided free to those who are unemployed and/or are below the poverty line) and private health (provided to those who are rich enough to afford it and to those who have medical insurance, called medical aid here, the contributions for which usually are included in a salary package).

Here are the problems: The public health system (funded by tax) is, mostly, appalling (really, just because you are poor and unemployed does not mean you must be treated like an animal). In the private health sector, providers usually charge over and beyond the rates set by the medical aid providers, so the individual has to pay for the difference. The government is now trying to address the first problem and is proposing a public health system that is funded through VAT and some sort of public-private health collaboration (simplistically, instead of duplicating, the two sectors can make use of each others' best facilities ... I made use of this myself in the past when I was covered by medical aid, what Americans call health insurance, but went to a public health facility for treatment as they offered the best in the field).

The working people I have spoken to (who fund the public health system through the taxes they pay) are all in support of this proposed new system as it would be a more fair way of paying for it (through VAT rather than PAYE tax) but are adamant that the public health system must improve the quality of what it provides (i.e. we are sick of paying for really bad health provision to the poor so we want better).

Some basic principles to understand: Health care is regarded as a basic human right in this country (so the outrage is not that more than 25% of society have to be carried by the rest but that what is provided to that more than 25% who have to be carried is so darned bad - stop wasting our money!). Alternative health care is recognised, so medical aid (health insurance) must pay if you, e.g,. choose to treat cancer with acupuncture. It's not a free for all, in that 'alternative', called traditional or allied health provision, medical treatments gain legally enforced recognition by establishing a professional body alongside with recognised educational qualifications. Gosh, who is recognised by law? Chiropractors, homeopaths, traditional healers... (I remember being treated by a kinesiologist and being covered) and I am sure that acupuncture is also recognised by law.

Would be interesting to see the reaction ... this kind of recognition of basic human rights and the acceptance that such a huge percentage of the population must be carried 'free of charge' (but remember that a public health system funded by VAT rather than PAYE would be more fair) may be fundamentally unacceptable to many. On the other hand, much of the health care policy and legislation in this country may be appealing to many (i.e. the legal recognition that we have the legal right to choose what kind of medical treatment we want).

However, the consequences of not paying to take care of those who cannot, or will not, take care of themselves may just cost us more. Do you really want to have to trip over diseased beggars every day, all the time? And yes of course there has to be a balance! At present in this country there are 15 million on social grants (probably 25% of the population). But the overriding thinking seems to be that we accept that there will always be those who just take and never give (the parasites, many of whom are just not capable of being anything else), but let's weed out the illegal parasites (i.e. for a start a LOT of illegal immigrants and a LOT of people who abuse the system - so let's cut the number down to under 20% for a start), and if we are paying, then we expect good value for our money.

Does anything I have said make sense at all? Is anything relevant to Obama's health care reform? Probably not!

[the_vast_mystery]

I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

Reading further into the Health Care Act you will also find that elderly people who have a terminal illness will be subject to bureaucratic panels (infamously, but correctly called, death panels) that will determine if they are entitled to have their treatment covered. It's based on how much money would be spent by the insurance company vs. the anticipated length of time this person can be expected to live with this illness. It's an insidious piece of legislation, but our legislators knew that. That's why they exempted themselves from this Act. It doesn't apply to them.

What is often missed in this argument is that those same sorts of Bureaucracy existed before, only it was the insurance company making the decision instead of the government. It all really comes down to who you'd trust to make the decision more. A private company who has every reason to drop your coverage at its earliest convenience (which probably means they'd end up denying more coverage), or the government which has a modicum of public accountability (in that you can always vote in new legislators to alter the laws.) That's not to say that making end of life care decisions isn't important, but it's an illusion to think the ACA actually curtailed any medical choice. You never had any medical choice in this country if you weren't already rich.

You either were born rich (and could afford individual insurance) or you got insurance with your job, and put up with whatever their medical bureaucracy said you had to put up with. You simply accepted it because you were somehow put under the illusion it was you who chose your health insurance entirely because it was provided by a private company. There are always exceptions to this, but that was reality for the vast majority of Americans who could even afford coverage.

[kathymarie]

...rats....looks like we'll have to wait until Monday the 25th....delays delays.....

[Ellisa]

What I don't understand about the US system of health care is what happens to people who have no insurance, either because they are too poor, or because they are unemployed? If they get sick are there places they can go to to receive some care, or do they just die?

It seems to me that the elderly people quoted as facing so-called Death Panels would at least have the chance of treatment, which from my reading of the posters here, would not happen now. They would just be dead- probably before they reached the stage where they could be termed elderly.

Please tell me I am wrong-- I do not believe a civilised society could let people die because they can't afford medicine and treatment.

[Dennis Leahy]

What I don't understand about the US system of health care is what happens to people who have no insurance, either because they are too poor, or because they are unemployed? If they get sick are there places they can go to to receive some care, or do they just die?

It seems to me that the elderly people quoted as facing so-called Death Panels would at least have the chance of treatment, which from my reading of the posters here, would not happen now. They would just be dead- probably before they reached the stage where they could be termed elderly.

Please tell me I am wrong-- I do not believe a civilised society could let people die because they can't afford medicine and treatment.If someone shows up at an Emergency Room, broke and without insurance, they do get basic treatment. The hospital takes the loss - part of operating expenses. No compensation at all from the US government. (Source: I know a hospital CEO.)

Dennis

[ghostrider]

Government shouldn't force me to do anything about me getting or not getting healthcare. I wish the politicains would just leave us alone and let us live our lives. The train wreck they've created on all fronts, and they want to tell me how to live ? they can't even balance a checkbook. 16 trillion in debt .

[Tane Mahuta]

My prediction is as follows. Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will find the Affordable Healthcare Act Unconstitutional, Specifically the mandate. (5-4) :jester:

Way to go jag!!!...

TM

[jagman]

I'll look on-line all day tomorrow & see what happens.
It looks like my prediction is going to be off by a day but it will be a 5-4 decision.
From what I've heard on the news, The decision is already wrote but they are waiting to release it because they know its going to cause a big stink.

[eileenrose]

Government shouldn't force me to do anything about me getting or not getting healthcare. I wish the politicains would just leave us alone and let us live our lives. The train wreck they've created on all fronts, and they want to tell me how to live ? they can't even balance a checkbook. 16 trillion in debt .

Not exactly about this...but I did have the thought that government is run like some of those not credible charities. They take in fees/taxes through regulating us, they keep 90% for their expenses (ie. the top 10% of their 'management' gets 95%??, a straight out guess, of this, either as direct salaries, or as subsidies or as projects in their district (which you know leaves lots of graf options and other ways to get that chunk of change, and Agenda 21 projects).

The rest goes to the silly human's working for them in state agencies and where ever and the rest of the funds are uses to do something that makes it appear like they are legitimate. But lately, they've run out of these funds. So you know what comes next (even if people are not, in general, willing to perceive this outcome).

All illusionary (government, or what we think is a government, rather than just another criminal enterprise with a nice front)...is my feeling.

[jagman]

Americans do need better and more affordable insurance. We also need tort reform to stop the frivolous lawsuits It was the whole process that turned the
American peoples stomache. Nancy Pelosi " We will have to pass it before we see whats in it." They forced it down our throats and its a bitter pill.
I think im going to eat a double quarter pounder from Mcdonalds and wash it down with a big 44oz of cola. If my arteries harden or I have a heart attack
or I get fat, Well...... I guess its on me and i wouldnt have it any other way.....For land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Ellisa]

So, I hadn't realised this jagman... After being patched up the person is discharged from Emergency, where they have only received treatment at all because they are in a bad state, first aid really--- what happens then? Are they ever admitted for treatment, for monitoring, or for an operation? For example, suppose it was a heart attack or stroke suffered by a 60 yo person who has lost their job and thus their cover. How would their treatment proceed? Heart patients often need time in hospital for treatment and also assessment and for a stroke survivor the follow up rehab, usually in a medical setting, is essential. Does this patient receive this?

What about accessing doctors? A person with a bad chest infection can be treated outside of hospital by their local doctor and be returned to health - although, hang on, would they be entitled to medicines (free or discounted)?. If this chest infection is neglected the ensuing pneumonia would need hospital admission for the patient. Would that happen?

I have to say that from the comments here most people don't see this as a bad thing. I guess you get used to what you have, even when it is not the way it could , or should, be.

[jagman]

So, I hadn't realised this jagman... After being patched up the person is discharged from Emergency, where they have only received treatment at all because they are in a bad state, first aid really--- what happens then? Are they ever admitted for treatment, for monitoring, or for an operation? For example, suppose it was a heart attack or stroke suffered by a 60 yo person who has lost their job and thus their cover. How would their treatment proceed? Heart patients often need time in hospital for treatment and also assessment and for a stroke survivor the follow up rehab, usually in a medical setting, is essential. Does this patient receive this?

What about accessing doctors? A person with a bad chest infection can be treated outside of hospital by their local doctor and be returned to health - although, hang on, would they be entitled to medicines (free or discounted)?. If this chest infection is neglected the ensuing pneumonia would need hospital admission for the patient. Would that happen?

I have to say that from the comments here most people don't see this as a bad thing. I guess you get used to what you have, even when it is not the way it could , or should, be.

Elisa, You make some pretty good points.We do need more safety nets for the poor.
But this monstrosity of legislation was all wrong for the American people. You know
If Barack Obama wanted real healthcare reform he should have followed Bill Clintons
example. Bill Clinton reached across the asile to Newt and wellfare reform was born.

[UnrealDreams]

What I don't understand about the US system of health care is what happens to people who have no insurance, either because they are too poor, or because they are unemployed? If they get sick are there places they can go to to receive some care, or do they just die?

It seems to me that the elderly people quoted as facing so-called Death Panels would at least have the chance of treatment, which from my reading of the posters here, would not happen now. They would just be dead- probably before they reached the stage where they could be termed elderly.

Please tell me I am wrong-- I do not believe a civilised society could let people die because they can't afford medicine and treatment.

Dennis answered this already, but...... sure, if you walk into an emergency room, you will be treated. This is great if you are in a car crash, or you break a limb. However, if you have terminal cancer, or another disease and you need procedures done, or even specialist consultation, you are screwed.

I have a story for you. I was working for a large electrical contractor in 2005 and had health insurance through them. I had some stomach pains, and went to my doctor. He couldn't find the problem, and he referred me to a specialist. I lost my job a few months later when the company went belly up. Then I tried to go to the specialist. I didn't have insurance then, and the specialist denied my request for an appointment. I looked in the phone book and called around. I had plenty of money and offered to pay cash. In spite of this, not one single specialist would see me without insurance. So I had to go another route.

I called around to try to see another doctor thinking maybe my problem could be diagnosed. After calling almost every doctor in the phone book, I found exactly one doctor's office who would see me on a cash basis without insurance. I was excited, because the stomach pains were not going away. I was driving down the road, looking at addresses looking for the doctor's office and I drove right by it. Who knew the doctors office was inside a regular shopping center, next to a Winn Dixie supermarket!! It was actually just a walk in clinic. I didn't care as long as I got to see a doctor about my stomach. So, I found my way into the doctors office and they took me back into an examination room. I finally did get to be seen, but there was no doctor there. There was a nurse practitioner who was running(literally) from examination room to examination room trying to see as many patients as possible.

The nurse practitioner did not diagnose my illness. She had absolutely no clue. So, to make a long story short, the health care system in America had failed me. I was sick and no amount of cash money would allow me to be treated in this system. The good thing was that I was not seriously ill. Another good thing was, this made me search for a cure on my own. I ended up buying the book "Healing the Gerson Way" by Charlotte Gerson after watching a video where she explained the basics of the Gerson Therapy and how she had cancelled her health insurance something like 45 years earlier because she no longer had a need for modern allopathic medicine.

I went on a very strict version of the Gerson Therapy, minus some of the supplements, and including only raw plant food in my diet. Within a few weeks I was better, and I went on a watered down version of the diet because of my propensity to go out to eat often. I found that the stomach issues were related to the food I was eating at restaurants, as I would have lapses occasionally, and the stomach issues would come back. After more research, I found that GMO food was causing my issues, and I have been off of GMO food ever since then. I had to leave the country because something like 90% of the corn is GMO, and it is everywhere and unlabeled. Nowadays, I rarely go out to eat, and strictly avoid processed foods. I can't always afford to eat organic food, but I try. I also take potassium supplements, and do liver flushing and organic juices regularly. If I ever get sick, I will go back on the full Gerson Therapy. I am now healthy.....no thanks to the American health care system.

This has worked out perfectly for me, I must say. Because now, after reading this book, I realize what the root cause of illness is. And that a holistic approach to health is essential. Nature gave us all that we need to be healthy, and I will never need to consult a modern allopathic doctor again for my health issues. I have taken control over my own well being and health. I am no longer a slave to the health care system, and this is very empowering. This is the best thing that ever happened to me from a health perspective.

[gripreaper]

I ended up buying the book "Healing the Gerson Way" by Charlotte Gerson after watching a video where she explained the basics of the Gerson Therapy and how she had cancelled her health insurance something like 45 years earlier because she no longer had a need for modern allopathic medicine.

This has worked out perfectly for me, I must say. Because now, after reading this book, I realize what the root cause of illness is. And that a holistic approach to health is essential. Nature gave us all that we need to be healthy, and I will never need to consult a modern allopathic doctor again for my health issues. I have taken control over my own well being and health. I am no longer a slave to the health care system, and this is very empowering. This is the best thing that ever happened to me from a health perspective.

Love Gerson. Also Jim Humble. Between the two of them, I no longer need allopathic medicine either. Don't have health insurance and I don't want it, or need it.

[Ellisa]

That's a horrible story, 'unreal dreams'. I am glad you were able to find some relief, but it is really bad that your health should depend on cover that you have no control over. It is good that you were able to correct your illness yourself, I have never heard of Charlotte Gerson but I shall be looking for some research in the area.

Whilst alternative methods often work- I for instance get huge relief from arthritis by acupuncture, which was suggested by my conventional doctor who was not keen to provide more and more medications- for many conditions conventional treatments do work. It should be a choice which to use, not a forced decision. Often both will complement each other.

[Dennis Leahy]

The so-called health care bill is an abomination. It is the pretty magician's assistant's low-cut neckline on her sequined outfit. Watch the magicians hands!

There are several ideas splintered-off from the original topic of the so-called US "health care" bill being expressed here that deserve their own thread. Until then...

All of these are a part of the overall picture:
healthcare, health, emergency medicine, conventional ("modern", "Western") medicine and all of the various "alternative" medicine disciplines, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceutical drug companies, health insurance companies, US federal income tax, illegal/suppressed medicinal substances, US government collusion with pharmaceutical drug companies and with health insurance companies, USDA, FDA, CDC, WHO...

I spent a bit of time researching "health care reform", knew it was a rabbit hole, but was surprised how many interconnecting tunnels there were in the rabbit hole. Be careful what you ask for...

A faction of well-meaning US citizens are screaming for "universal health care" or for "single payer health care" (eliminate health insurance companies, have the US government act as the 'single payer' to healthcare providers, a.k.a. "Medicare for All.") The idea behind single payer is: Why take citizens money (via paycheck deductions for healthcare, employer contributions for healthcare, citizen direct payments to healthcare insurers), and run them through companies that have to pay for their own infrastructure and also skim 20% off the top? The US already has an established division that IS a health care insurer (Medicare), so why not just expand it to cover everyone (basically eliminating private health insurers?) It is an excellent argument. Health insurers don't see it that way though.

Bring on the propaganda! Confuse the masses! Tell everyone it will bankrupt the USA! (even though it would save at least a theoretical 20% that is insurers profit, and the money would mostly come from the same sources - employees and employers, supplemented with taxes that would replace the out of pocket portion US citizens already pay by the billions.) Yes, the pathway of getting the money out of citizens' pockets would be different, but the amount would be the same or less - the difference being that everyone ("universal") would have health care.

The idea of pooling resources (dare I say "socialism"?) for everyone's benefit makes a lot of people (many Republicans and Libertarians, for example) froth at the mouth. It doesn't matter if the financial equation proves that more people benefit and the amount of money that leaves any citizen's pocket is the same or less - some people just cannot stand the thought of helping others. ("Others", in their minds, may be "lazy people", or any group of people that they are prejudiced against.)

Remember, I mentioned watching the magician's hands. If 'single payer' became law tomorrow, health - the real goal of healthcare - in the US would still average out as awful. Healthcare in the US is broken, not just healthcare insurance. The medical system is broken. The food system is broken. The water system is broken. I do believe in the right of each individual to full autonomy with their own body, even to commit suicide, even to commit suicide via McDonalds, Coke, Monsanto, or Pfizer. But, the goddamned US government should not be in collusion with poison providers and poison makers, helping to hide (or sanction!) the dangers in our water and food (our first "medicines") and the poisons provided by Big Pharma.

Again, I spent a bit of time researching these topics, and there is a section in The Reset Button (http://www.resetbutton2012.org/Documents/ResetButtonFull.pdf) document on "Medical and Pharmacology Reform", another on "Health Care Reform", and related information in "Food, Water, and Air Sovereignty Reform" and "Agricultural and Ranching Reform." Even the section on "Income Tax Reform" relates.

And, of course, all of those topics I wrote about in The Reset Button have at the root that first, the US citizens will demand "Election Reform" (the goal of Phase I), so that ordinary citizens with no ties to corporations are elected and appointed in all positions of US government. None of the other reforms will ever take place - regardless of the Orwellian double-speak names given to congressional bills - with officials embedded that are really the representatives of corporations.

I can say, with confidence, that I am against any and every bill passed by the current US government. Why? Well, they don't work for citizens, they work directly for corporations. This isn't 1950, it's a brave new world where the gray zone between competing worldviews and ideologies of (at least some) sincere politicians 'on both sides of the aisle' is gone. Every bill passed by the US congress will be for corporations - and against citizens' - interests.

Dennis

[nearing]

A faction of well-meaning US citizens are screaming for "universal health care" or for "single payer health care" (eliminate health insurance companies, have the US government act as the 'single payer' to healthcare providers, a.k.a. "Medicare for All.") The idea behind single payer is: Why take citizens money (via paycheck deductions for healthcare, employer contributions for healthcare, citizen direct payments to healthcare insurers), and run them through companies that have to pay for their own infrastructure and also skim 20% off the top? The US already has an established division that IS a health care insurer (Medicare), so why not just expand it to cover everyone (basically eliminating private health insurers?) It is an excellent argument. Health insurers don't see it that way though.

Bring on the propaganda! Confuse the masses! Tell everyone it will bankrupt the USA! (even though it would save at least a theoretical 20% that is insurers profit, and the money would mostly come from the same sources - employees and employers, supplemented with taxes that would replace the out of pocket portion US citizens already pay by the billions.) Yes, the pathway of getting the money out of citizens' pockets would be different, but the amount would be the same or less - the difference being that everyone ("universal") would have health care.

The idea of pooling resources (dare I say "socialism"?) for everyone's benefit makes a lot of people (many Republicans and Libertarians, for example) froth at the mouth. It doesn't matter if the financial equation proves that more people benefit and the amount of money that leaves any citizen's pocket is the same or less - some people just cannot stand the thought of helping others. ("Others", in their minds, may be "lazy people", or any group of people that they are prejudiced against.)

Remember, I mentioned watching the magician's hands. If 'single payer' became law tomorrow, health - the real goal of healthcare - in the US would still average out as awful. Healthcare in the US is broken, not just healthcare insurance. The medical system is broken. The food system is broken. The water system is broken. I do believe in the right of each individual to full autonomy with their own body, even to commit suicide, even to commit suicide via McDonalds, Coke, Monsanto, or Pfizer. But, the goddamned US government should not be in collusion with poison providers and poison makers, helping to hide (or sanction!) the dangers in our water and food (our first "medicines") and the poisons provided by Big Pharma.

Again, I spent a bit of time researching these topics, and there is a section in The Reset Button (http://www.resetbutton2012.org/Documents/ResetButtonFull.pdf) document on "Medical and Pharmacology Reform", another on "Health Care Reform", and related information in "Food, Water, and Air Sovereignty Reform" and "Agricultural and Ranching Reform." Even the section on "Income Tax Reform" relates.

And, of course, all of those topics I wrote about in The Reset Button have at the root that first, the US citizens will demand "Election Reform" (the goal of Phase I), so that ordinary citizens with no ties to corporations are elected and appointed in all positions of US government. None of the other reforms will ever take place - regardless of the Orwellian double-speak names given to congressional bills - with officials embedded that are really the representatives of corporations.

I can say, with confidence, that I am against any and every bill passed by the current US government. Why? Well, they don't work for citizens, they work directly for corporations. This isn't 1950, it's a brave new world where the gray zone between competing worldviews and ideologies of (at least some) sincere politicians 'on both sides of the aisle' is gone. Every bill passed by the US congress will be for corporations - and against citizens' - interests.

Dennis

Hallulujah, Dennis and Amen to all you just said there.

[turiya]

Connecting the dots

“As I said when you first wrote about our conversation, Obama and his crew don’t have any obvious plans of going anywhere in 2013. They have no plans to accept any Supreme Court decision striking down ‘Obama-Care,’ and intend to implement certain aspects by executive edict, regardless of the decision. I am obviously limited to the extent of my direct experiences and sources, but Obama is surrounded by a very loyal group of people in positions of extreme power. The DHS in particular is working on turning inward on Americans who disagree or stand in the way of his policies. People need to understand that the DHS is Obama’s personal army. The DOJ, EPA, other government and non-government agencies and his economic advisors are all working together to changing this country. They’re all power hungry and lack morality. They’ll stop at virtually nothing to see that our country is changed and broken beyond repair.

The financial sector is out of control and lining the pockets of our elected leaders. Think Jon Corzine and Jamie Dimon. Our debt is unsustainable. The class divide, due to crony capitalism is getting worse. From my vantage point, considering the people I overhear and am in touch with, these events are not only anticipated, but are being orchestrated in a deliberate, controlled manner.

Whatever the event, they intend to extend their stay another four years to finish what’s been started. We will be a Marxist nation and a Banana Republic.”
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/6170#more-6170


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZL9vNmUKyU&feature=relmfu

[Mulder]

The Supreme Court has not rules as yet! Are they waiting for the elections?