disease care insurance is not a right

[Guest guest]

We have a disease-care system that was originally set up the Eugenicist

Rockefeller family who funded entire medical departments in universities,

hired staff that would promote their allopathic/drug/treat-the-symptom

paradigm and got rid of those who wouldn't. And today, it turns out that

this paradigm is the third leading cause of death in America (allopathic

doctors).

Things may have changed since I had " health " care insurance about a decade

ago, but for the most part, " health " care insurance covers almost

exclusively *allopathic* doctors. (I know there are exceptions.)

So, do we as Americans, or as human beings, have an inalienable right to a

service (insurance) that enables us to go to doctors, which we have a 33.3%

chance of being killed by? I don't mean intentionally murdered by the docs,

obviously, the drugs do a lot of the killing.

Obviously, that is not a *right*.

From a completely different angle, does the Administration du jour have the

right to put a gun to Connie's head and force her to pay for Dawn's disease

care insurance? Does it have the right to put a gun to *my* head and force

me to pay for insurance I don't want or to fine me if I don't pay? That's

the Massachusetts system. How can I afford a several thousand dollar fine if

I can't afford the disease care insurance in the first place?

And does the Administration have the right to put a gun to Mike's head to

make him pay for illegal aliens having the 33.3% chance to be killed by

allopathic medicine? We, as a nation, are broke. We're worse than broke -

we're deeply, DEEPLY, in the red. We've just had 23.7 TRILLION DOLLARS

stolen from us by the ruling oligarchy and practically no one knows it.

(That's the amount of money the Fed has created since Fall 2008 according to

Bloomberg Financial.) As this brand new, made from thin air money

circulates, our already nearly worthless dollar will be worth even less. And

most of our income tax goes to paying the INTEREST on the money the

oligarchs printed out of thin air and gave to themselves and their cronies.

We are perpetual debt slaves to them.

So, as our dollar nears the point of being worth *nothing*, as we are forced

to work 2 or more jobs in order to get by, in order to be able to pay our

taxes to the exceptionally wealthy oligarchs, and as we are given yet

another massive gov't program that will force us to pay for something for

ourselves and others we may not even want (or can't even afford for

ourselves as it is), what is left in our pockets?

If the dollar could buy as much as it did before the inception of the

privately owned Fed, we would all have a LOT more money that WE could give

to the charity of our choice, to help friends, family and community. But we

are powerless to the vagaries of whatever President (but really the

oligarchs behind him) decide they want to spend our money on. Such as war.

If we dismantled the American military empire, we'd all have a LOT more

money to spend on our health. But as long as we allow a large centralized

power - the President as front man for the oligarchs - to decide how to

spend our money, every 4.-8 years the Dems will bitch and moan about what

their money is being spent on, then 4 years later the Republicans will bitch

and moan about what *their* money is being spent on. It's a never ending

cycle of keeping us fighting amongst each other while we are ALL being

robbed blind by those who play us like pieces on a chessboard.

The worst thing for the oligarchs, is for the central (Federal) government

to have very limited power and for the bulk of the power to rest with the

states and with us citizens. We have so much more control over our own lives

when our state has more power than the Federal government because we can

influence state politics much more easily. And that dispersed power makes it

much harder for the oligarchs to control our lives. Tyranny would be much

harder to enforce. It's so much easier to tyrannize a population when it has

centralized the bulk of power into fewer hands. Fewer people to bribe,

extort, threaten, lobby or bargain with.

IMO, our most basic inalienable right is freedom. Freedom from tyranny, from

indentured servitude, from slavery, etc. Forcing people to pay for and/or

participate in a disease care insurance plan (that they may not want) is an

affront to that most basic right.

Suze Fisher

" Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. "

~Albert Schweitzer

[Guest guest]

On Aug 22, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> We have a disease-care system that was originally set up the

> Eugenicist

> Rockefeller family who funded entire medical departments in

> universities,

> hired staff that would promote their allopathic/drug/treat-the-symptom

> paradigm and got rid of those who wouldn't. And today, it turns out

> that

> this paradigm is the third leading cause of death in America

> (allopathic

> doctors).

>

> Things may have changed since I had " health " care insurance about a

> decade

> ago, but for the most part, " health " care insurance covers almost

> exclusively *allopathic* doctors. (I know there are exceptions.)

>

> So, do we as Americans, or as human beings, have an inalienable

> right to a

> service (insurance) that enables us to go to doctors, which we have

> a 33.3%

> chance of being killed by? I don't mean intentionally murdered by

> the docs,

> obviously, the drugs do a lot of the killing.

>

> Obviously, that is not a *right*.

>

When people refer to a right to have healthcare, they are obviously

not referring to a right to bad healthcare. But I think that it is

important to

distinguish the 2 concepts - what would constitute good healthcare,

and I think that on this list, most people have some general agreement

about how recommendations for the pursuit of good health

have been corrupted in this country. - but then there is again the

question about whether the pursuit of good health should be a right,

or whether you have it should depend on your financial situation.

I mean, not even the people who argue this stuff vacuously would agree

with the statement, everyone has the right to malpractice. That's not

what we mean.

But I am not naive enough to believe that all doctors are evil, that

they will always hurt you, and that eating a good diet will then

automatically prevent any need for medical care. If someone does need

that, then I think that it should be a right.

When I was unemployed about 8 years ago, I had a problem which brought

me to the emergency ward. A quick urine test and some antibiotics

later, I was ok. Could my diet at that time have prevented it? I don't

know. Could stress have caused it - very likely, but I don't know. But

I'm not convinced that there was another solution - in any case, the

bill was over $1,000 for the whole thing, which included something

like 5 minutes of a doctor's time...To the greatest degree possible, I

think that the system needs to recognize healthcare. or well being, if

you will, as a right - but I'm not naive enough to believe that even

if a single payer system could be established, that this would

suddenly result in an entirely different way of looking at health/

diet, etc. Of course not. But I do think that a single payer system

would be incredibly better than we have now.

>

>

> From a completely different angle, does the Administration du jour

> have the

> right to put a gun to Connie's head and force her to pay for Dawn's

> disease

> care insurance? Does it have the right to put a gun to *my* head and

> force

> me to pay for insurance I don't want or to fine me if I don't pay?

> That's

> the Massachusetts system. How can I afford a several thousand dollar

> fine if

> I can't afford the disease care insurance in the first place?

>

I think that a social healthcare system, as has been discussed in this

thread already, would certainly require people who can afford it to

chip in for the care of those who cannot.

As far as how the Massachusetts system works - I'm not entirely sure.

I think that healthcare should be free, and I think that strongly

progressive taxation, drastic cuts in military spending, etc, should

pay for it.

But certainly - hell yeah. I think that people who can afford to

should help out people who cannot.

>

>

> And does the Administration have the right to put a gun to Mike's

> head to

> make him pay for illegal aliens having the 33.3% chance to be killed

> by

> allopathic medicine?

>

Should we have freedom of speech so that I can slander or libel

someone? Obviously, there are rights that we as a society deem people

to have, and then we also as a society decide what the limits are. We

can decide that there is a right to healthcare, and also try to make

the healthcare system better. We can also decide to what degree

illegal aliens can pursue that right in this country, but I generally

find the ravings about illegal aliens to be rather objectionable, as

if these people come here out of some evil desire to suck this country

dry or something.

The notion of 'freedom' is a nice one, and very few people object to

it in the abstract. However, I think that you are grossly distorting

the fact that it is indeed true that there are millions of people in

this country who cannot afford heatlhcare, and who suffer because of

it. And that in some cases that healthcare might actually be good and

needed, and help people. A society that limits their access to this

help, as ours does, IS limiting their freedom.

Sure - the devil is in the details, but I don't see why it's a

requirement that any single payer system restrict your access to

alternative care if you should want it.

> We, as a nation, are broke. We're worse than broke -

> we're deeply, DEEPLY, in the red. We've just had 23.7 TRILLION DOLLARS

> stolen from us by the ruling oligarchy and practically no one knows

> it.

> (That's the amount of money the Fed has created since Fall 2008

> according to

> Bloomberg Financial.) As this brand new, made from thin air money

> circulates, our already nearly worthless dollar will be worth even

> less. And

> most of our income tax goes to paying the INTEREST on the money the

> oligarchs printed out of thin air and gave to themselves and their

> cronies.

> We are perpetual debt slaves to them.

>

> So, as our dollar nears the point of being worth *nothing*, as we

> are forced

> to work 2 or more jobs in order to get by, in order to be able to

> pay our

> taxes to the exceptionally wealthy oligarchs, and as we are given yet

> another massive gov't program that will force us to pay for

> something for

> ourselves and others we may not even want (or can't even afford for

> ourselves as it is), what is left in our pockets?

>

> If the dollar could buy as much as it did before the inception of the

> privately owned Fed, we would all have a LOT more money that WE

> could give

> to the charity of our choice, to help friends, family and community.

> But we

> are powerless to the vagaries of whatever President (but really the

> oligarchs behind him) decide they want to spend our money on. Such

> as war.

> If we dismantled the American military empire, we'd all have a LOT

> more

> money to spend on our health. But as long as we allow a large

> centralized

> power - the President as front man for the oligarchs - to decide how

> to

> spend our money, every 4.-8 years the Dems will bitch and moan about

> what

> their money is being spent on, then 4 years later the Republicans

> will bitch

> and moan about what *their* money is being spent on. It's a never

> ending

> cycle of keeping us fighting amongst each other while we are ALL being

> robbed blind by those who play us like pieces on a chessboard.

>

> The worst thing for the oligarchs, is for the central (Federal)

> government

> to have very limited power and for the bulk of the power to rest

> with the

> states and with us citizens. We have so much more control over our

> own lives

> when our state has more power than the Federal government because we

> can

> influence state politics much more easily. And that dispersed power

> makes it

> much harder for the oligarchs to control our lives. Tyranny would be

> much

> harder to enforce. It's so much easier to tyrannize a population

> when it has

> centralized the bulk of power into fewer hands. Fewer people to bribe,

> extort, threaten, lobby or bargain with.

>

> IMO, our most basic inalienable right is freedom. Freedom from

> tyranny, from

> indentured servitude, from slavery, etc. Forcing people to pay for

> and/or

> participate in a disease care insurance plan (that they may not

> want) is an

> affront to that most basic right.

>

> Suze Fisher

>

> " Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the

> sight. "

> ~Albert Schweitzer

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > Obviously, that is not a *right*.

> >

>

> When people refer to a right to have healthcare, they are obviously

> not referring to a right to bad healthcare. But I think that it is

> important to

> distinguish the 2 concepts - what would constitute good healthcare,

> and I think that on this list, most people have some general agreement

> about how recommendations for the pursuit of good health

> have been corrupted in this country. - but then there is again the

> question about whether the pursuit of good health should be a right,

> or whether you have it should depend on your financial situation.

>

> I mean, not even the people who argue this stuff vacuously would agree

> with the statement, everyone has the right to malpractice. That's not

> what we mean.

No, it's not what you mean, but it's the reality of what we have, and what

any government plan will provide.

>

> But I am not naive enough to believe that all doctors are evil, that

> they will always hurt you, and that eating a good diet will then

> automatically prevent any need for medical care.

I totally agree.

If someone does need

> that, then I think that it should be a right.

And if they can't afford it, then they have the right to take the money from

someone else to pay for this service?

>

> When I was unemployed about 8 years ago, I had a problem which brought

> me to the emergency ward. A quick urine test and some antibiotics

> later, I was ok. Could my diet at that time have prevented it? I don't

> know. Could stress have caused it - very likely, but I don't know. But

> I'm not convinced that there was another solution - in any case, the

> bill was over $1,000 for the whole thing, which included something

> like 5 minutes of a doctor's time...To the greatest degree possible, I

> think that the system needs to recognize healthcare. or well being, if

> you will, as a right - but I'm not naive enough to believe that even

> if a single payer system could be established, that this would

> suddenly result in an entirely different way of looking at health/

> diet, etc. Of course not. But I do think that a single payer system

> would be incredibly better than we have now.

1) You needn't have " health " care in order to get emergency service. I have

*accident* insurance for $112/month. It has a high deductible, but I am

covered for traumatic injury. This is far cheaper than " health " insurance.

The only thing I'd use allopathic services/drugs for anyway, is diagnostics.

With rare exceptions, I would consider using surgery in the case of certain

types of tumors. I'd rather put my money toward *preventative* care through

diet, lifestyle, detox, etc.

2) I just re-listened to an interesting interview with monetary historian

Gause in which he explains that it's his belief that the purpose of

the single payer system is for it to act as the next social security style

trust fund. Meaning that the fund will serve as the next till that the

government will snatch money from in order to fund other things as they did

with the SS fund. He said that there was once $4 trillion in the SS fund,

but that government has taken the money out to spend on other things and

left a $4 trillion I.O.U. in it's place (According to him we pay 50 cents of

every dollar to interest on Federal Reserve loans, 40 cents on defense and

other national spending, leaving little for much else). Now they need to

start paying baby boomers that money they stole from the SS fund, so they

need another massively large fund to extract that money owed, as well as for

other various expenses. Since " health " care is one of the most costly

segments of our economy, it's the perfect thing to consolidate into one

massive fund from which they can draw.

I don't know if his assessment is correct, but it certainly makes sense in

the context of the government's previous behavior.

> > From a completely different angle, does the Administration du jour

> > have the

> > right to put a gun to Connie's head and force her to pay for Dawn's

> > disease

> > care insurance? Does it have the right to put a gun to *my* head and

> > force

> > me to pay for insurance I don't want or to fine me if I don't pay?

> > That's

> > the Massachusetts system. How can I afford a several thousand dollar

> > fine if

> > I can't afford the disease care insurance in the first place?

> >

> I think that a social healthcare system, as has been discussed in this

> thread already, would certainly require people who can afford it to

> chip in for the care of those who cannot.

I don't agree with this but I think it very important that we don't look at

the health care issue and whether or not the government should be able to

force us to pay for health care for ourselves or others outside the context

of WHY so many of us can't afford it. This entire issue cannot be fully

understood outside the context of the Federal Reserve and its responsibility

in destroying the value of the dollar - the reason that so many of us can't

afford insurance. It also cannot be fully understood outside the context of

the historical and current control of the ruling oligarchy over our Federal

gov't and thus, over us. These issues are all interrelated and one impacts

the other. We are here in this situation right now with a pandemic of

degenerative diseases causing a very large percent of Americans to rely on a

medical paradigm which by and large is often harmful to them and which many

cannot afford, because it benefits and relatively small group of wealthy

powerbrokers.

> >

> > And does the Administration have the right to put a gun to Mike's

> > head to

> > make him pay for illegal aliens having the 33.3% chance to be killed

> > by

> > allopathic medicine?

> >

> Should we have freedom of speech so that I can slander or libel

> someone? Obviously, there are rights that we as a society deem people

> to have, and then we also as a society decide what the limits are. We

> can decide that there is a right to healthcare, and also try to make

> the healthcare system better. We can also decide to what degree

> illegal aliens can pursue that right in this country, but I generally

> find the ravings about illegal aliens to be rather objectionable, as

> if these people come here out of some evil desire to suck this country

> dry or something.

I don' think that is the intent of the large majority of illegal aliens.

With perhaps, the possible exception of the one I married, then divorced ;-)

I think most come out of desperation - certainly Mexicans probably do to a

large extent since Mexico is in shambles, and I would most likely do the

same if I lived under a system like that.

But the problem is not what we think or feel about people who are here

illegally. Even if we feel we *should* pay for their " health " care, we

simply can't afford it. I can't say this often enough - we are BROKE. We are

deep, DEEP in the red. The money simply is not there. Many Americans can't

even afford clean water, food and shelter and many families must now work 2

or more jobs just to get by. Again, that's because our dollar buys so much

LESS than it used to. We really are slaves to debt - the debt we owe the

Federal Reserve and pay to them through our taxes. We are also paying an

inflation tax on top of that, meaning what little value our dollar has left

is partly being sucked out of it by the inflation caused by the massive

influx of money into circulation. And it is those banks that get it first

and get it directly from the Fed that enjoy the full value of those dollars,

until they pump them into circulation, then the value starts to drop. So by

the time it reaches those of us at the bottom of the totem pole, inflation

from the new influx has kicked in and the same dollar that the banks could

buy, say, 5 loaves of bread with, now only buys us little people 2 loaves.

(I'm using arbitrary numbers to simply illustrate the point.)

>

> The notion of 'freedom' is a nice one, and very few people object to

> it in the abstract. However, I think that you are grossly distorting

> the fact that it is indeed true that there are millions of people in

> this country who cannot afford heatlhcare, and who suffer because of

> it. And that in some cases that healthcare might actually be good and

> needed, and help people. A society that limits their access to this

> help, as ours does, IS limiting their freedom.

I do realize there are millions without " health " care insurance, but don't

see a government plan of forced " health " care as either a good solution or

as the most humane one. And I disagree that not forcing to buy a

product (insurance) for is limiting 's freedom. It sure is limiting

's though. Again, this whole issue cannot be fully argued without

taking the greater context into consideration - namely, our monetary system,

the oligarchs who manipulate it, and who no doubt are manipulating this

entire " health " insurance issue to meet their own needs, not ours.

Suze Fisher

" Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. "

~Albert Schweitzer