Can someone explain?

[Maya]

I DONT want to open a can of worms.. please dont get agitated, I am just a foreighner, but I would like to understand a point of wiev may of you have, that seems weird to me adn I just can not understand the way some of you think. So forgive this thread... and Pam has all teh authority... as many others , even me to close thsi thread ANY time it seems messessarry. I know this is a hot question and me beeing at least now on teh opposite site is not helpin.

Ok here we go...

I can not understand WHY so many of LDS are against Obamas health bill I think you call it? Isnt it so that we as LDS should wish all good to our fellow citisents? Is there any alternative those against have for this os suggestion? HOW would others help those less fortunate to get the medical treatment they need. Fact is NOT everyone HAS money to pay the insurance from their own poket.

Ok there may be a free hospital stuff but IS that as good as for those who pay the insurance. If not why not? Is it so that if you are for some reason fallen off the society by unemployment or sickness that you should not have the equal rights for health care, or as those who can pay the insurance better people and thus should be taken better care of?

I am sorry I just cant kind of get this.

Is there an alternative like people donating for others insurance payments? Could not people think they kind of donate health to someone who can not afford it by paying the needed amount of more taxes... the healthcare is taken care of by donation, taken directly from your salary. Why not? Is the problem that you can not SEE where it goes who it helps? Maybe some pictures of happy children who have got really good healtcare free could change your opinion?

Someone says it is communism to do it that way? When has communism become the good helping the needy? I just feel that you guys, who can, have to start donating a LOT more freely than you have done to healthcare in order to help those less fortunate in your own country. With so many loosing their jobs and all I cant see how they mange to continue paying the insurance... have they fallen out of the system all together? Sorry I really dont understand the system.

In my country the healtservices are not completely free, but they are 100 times less than they would be if we would not have taken the money from everyone in taxes. Stil people DO die in waiting for treatment. But at least everyone gets the basic healthcare very cheep. And also continuenly, if needed and if there is enough capasity.

The only thing here that needs to get in the free healthcare are teeth.... you get refound for pulling the teeth, but not setting newones in your mouth. New ones cost 1500$ a peace....

Anyway it kind of suprises me that so many LDS are against making the good health servies awailable to those less fortunate too. Just wondering.... maybe someone can explain this to my small brain. There still could be the super healthcare for the rich... if they feel too good to be with the common folks.

[Moksha]

Maya, you raise some excellent concerns. I think it was Christ's charge for us to help those in need. Should we not seek to do what is necessary and even more to that end?

[BenRaines]

If someone in the US does not have money they can get state medical coverage as Medicaid. This is state by state funded with supplemental funding coming from the US government. Quality of care may very some but all doctors are required to be licensed physicians. The very wealthy can always afford the best doctors and best facilities.

There are some who choose not to have medical coverage. Those who are young, with few assets, realize that the govt will step in and pay their bills if something happens.

There is reported abuse in all types of coverage. Most abuse is by corrupt physicians and patients. Most of this is done in billing and overcharging or charging for services not given.

I would favor a medical plan that covered children to the age of 18. It would be no different than the coverage we give senor citizens with Medicare. Just a thought

Ben Raines

[Jamie123]

It puzzles me how many Americans are against it. In Britain we have the National Health Service, which is (as far as I can see) much the same as what Obama is proposing. People criticise and moan about the NHS, but at least it is available to everyone, regardless of their means. It's existed since the 1940's, and my generation grew up with it as a basic assumption of life. It seems appalling to us that the US - a country superficially so similar to ours - should not have its own equivalent.

But of course I'm a product of the environment I grew up in. Americans will no doubt find my thinking just as appalling and shoot me down in flames for saying this.

[wondering23]

I have to admit as an Australian I do find it odd too. In Australia we have Medicare andthis link here explains it. It's a fantastic program which enables every one no matter what their income to receive the same level of care.

[applepansy]

In a nutshell its about the government infringing on our Agency. It was Satan's plan to take away our Agency. There are many scriptures about this. There are general conference talks too. Agency is a wonderful gift from a loving Heavenly Father. As LDS we should have a good understanding of what Agency means to us. I would hope we are all loath to give it away, especially to government.

Basically, if we are compelled or forced to do what is right (take care of each other) there is no blessing.

When people do what is right then government has no need to step in and force us to do it. Unrighteousness is the downfall of all Republics ... Rome is an example. As government takes over, more people feel entitled and less work hard, less innovation, etc. By loosing our agency we are also loosing our rights to excel, our right to choose good over evil, etc.

In my opinion that is why so many LDS people are against government taking over our health care system.

On another note: I have chronic health issues. I've have spoken online with many people over the last 10 years from England and Canada who have come to the USA to get medical care because they cannot get the care they need where they live. Some chronic health issues haven't been considered illnesses until recently, so they have been denied care of years. Or they have something not considered urgent. Many excuses are given. They end up here. How are those systems better if the people are coming to the US for medical care?

Edited February 17, 2010 by applepansy

[Jamie123]

Basically, if we are compelled or forced to do what is right (take care of each other) there is no blessing.

By this rule there should be no government-controlled law enforcement. Since police prevent crime they deprive would-be criminals of their free agency not to commit offences.

[MarginOfError]

I'm all for health care reform. But the current bill isn't a good change. Don't confuse the shell of health care reform with progress. The current bill would essentially extend health care coverage to all (or almost all) Americans -- which is good -- but does very little to reduce and control costs -- which is very very bad.

Provide legislation that will reduce costs, control spending, and extend health care to everyone, and I'll gladly support it. But I don't think you're going to get that through legislation.

However, Medicare is starting to do some interesting things that might reform health care through the back door. Sometime in the next couple of years they're going to move to a system where they pay a blanket amount for a diagnosis (instead of paying by procedure). Thus, hospitals will have incentive to cut down on unnecessary tests, build more on group practice models, and provide outcomes based health care at lower costs. It has some downsides, but for the most part it's a pretty good idea.

[Mahone]

Many excuses are given. They end up here. How are those systems better if the people are coming to the US for medical care?

It'd be easier to answer that if we had direct reasons from both the doctors in the UK and the client, for each individual case. The NHS is not the only option people have here. Providing they have the money, they can go private and pretty much have what they want done and as soon as they like. Admittedly, the NHS is far from perfect. That's because people have abused it in recent years and now it is struggling under the strain. But the ideas behind it are brilliant and they used to work really well. My mum recently had to have a discectomy. The NHS wanted her to go through numerous tests which would have taken up to a couple of months, to be sure this was what she needed before going into surgery. With the amount of pain she was in, this was far from a perfect solution - but the most important thing is that it would have ended up being done on the NHS. She decided to go private in the end though to speed things up a bit due to the pain. The lack of haste of the part of the NHS is due to being completely snowed under.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Mahone

[Maya]

Thank you so much to all of you. This has been very enlightening. I see you DO have a problem there.

Ben said that those that are not able to pay do get it trough state... how good the doctors are vary.. but so they do everywhere adb seldom good doctors choose to work with less money with those that are not able to pay so much.

Anyway I am sure they do not get it through the state unless they have sold everythig they possibly can to pay it themselves. In other words is one in a situation where you meet the choise of a house or medical care? Car in a carsociety or medical care? Or does the socials help in those cases?

Anyway IF ther eis a good system so why change it? Smells like the state just want a new posiibility to milk the citicents... Like here we pay taxes have laws even of getting treatment soon.. but it dont always work out and the state uses the Taxes there where it feels it is needed... oldpeople and kids came last... the forever fight about what is most important...

Ofcourse IF we had a just LDS state we all would work for free and get everything free... :)

But if a person without his/her own choise ends up in a severe medical situation, is it right that the person and the whole family looses everything, when trying to get the sick person healed? Ofcourse it is better to sell it all, than die.. I suppose. Just had a friend in SL area who lost everything earthly to pay the bills and even had to loan from family. Ofcourse it may be the person wanted rther to ahve a better doctor or something...

I suppose ALL health systems have their pigholes, as we call them.

I really can not see where the apples free will comes in the picture. A governement that is democratic like in USA goes for what the most want anyway or what is made most noice of. I feel it is not that much of taking away someones free will than to beeing conserned of fellow citicents and wanting to help them. Well ofcourse there are many that really dont deserve the help... but stil they are our Hevenly Fathers children too.

[Hemidakota]

I DONT want to open a can of worms.. please dont get agitated, I am just a foreighner, but I would like to understand a point of wiev may of you have, that seems weird to me adn I just can not understand the way some of you think. So forgive this thread... and Pam has all teh authority... as many others , even me to close thsi thread ANY time it seems messessarry. I know this is a hot question and me beeing at least now on teh opposite site is not helpin.

Ok here we go...

I can not understand WHY so many of LDS are against Obamas health bill I think you call it? Isnt it so that we as LDS should wish all good to our fellow citisents? Is there any alternative those against have for this os suggestion? HOW would others help those less fortunate to get the medical treatment they need. Fact is NOT everyone HAS money to pay the insurance from their own poket.

Ok there may be a free hospital stuff but IS that as good as for those who pay the insurance. If not why not? Is it so that if you are for some reason fallen off the society by unemployment or sickness that you should not have the equal rights for health care, or as those who can pay the insurance better people and thus should be taken better care of?

I am sorry I just cant kind of get this.

Is there an alternative like people donating for others insurance payments? Could not people think they kind of donate health to someone who can not afford it by paying the needed amount of more taxes... the healthcare is taken care of by donation, taken directly from your salary. Why not? Is the problem that you can not SEE where it goes who it helps? Maybe some pictures of happy children who have got really good healtcare free could change your opinion?

Someone says it is communism to do it that way? When has communism become the good helping the needy? I just feel that you guys, who can, have to start donating a LOT more freely than you have done to healthcare in order to help those less fortunate in your own country. With so many loosing their jobs and all I cant see how they mange to continue paying the insurance... have they fallen out of the system all together? Sorry I really dont understand the system.

In my country the healtservices are not completely free, but they are 100 times less than they would be if we would not have taken the money from everyone in taxes. Stil people DO die in waiting for treatment. But at least everyone gets the basic healthcare very cheep. And also continuenly, if needed and if there is enough capasity.

The only thing here that needs to get in the free healthcare are teeth.... you get refound for pulling the teeth, but not setting newones in your mouth. New ones cost 1500$ a peace....

Anyway it kind of suprises me that so many LDS are against making the good health servies awailable to those less fortunate too. Just wondering.... maybe someone can explain this to my small brain. There still could be the super healthcare for the rich... if they feel too good to be with the common folks.

Living in England, social medicine didn’t work and know many sought out private health care. Even serving in the military was a example on why this program is a failure before it even started. Call it a new name. Give it another slant on health but in all, government is not in the role of business. It is already a given the amount of failed programs when the government is involved.

Nor after listening to church history under President Young tenure as a Prophet in Utah, living the Law of Consecration brought about advancing any field of commerce or conducive for advancing technology. There is no incentive to do so. Health care is the same. We could have the federal employees – meaning the President, Congress, and the Senate, brought under the same program if you believe it is such a great program. But I do already know the answer since they have private health care that rivals even those [the rich] who can purchase such.

Now, for the poor, it is our obligation to help and support them. This is where each state must take up its own program in caring for the poor and the needy.

[Sali]

This is an issue that I have great interest in. Having lived in England for two thirds of my life and a third in the US and having health issues in both countries I feel I have enough experience of it to give my opinion.

In England I may have had to wait for treatment if it was not life threatening, but if it was an emergency it's dealt with immediately. Also I can take my child to the doctor without worrying about how I will pay for it and how I will pay the extortionate pharmaceutical prices I find here in the US.

My family doesn't have insurance here in the US. We cannot afford it. My husband works 48 hours a week. We are not in debt (apart from medical bills) but cannot afford another mortgage payment worth of health insurance. But yet, we do not qualify for Medicaid. We make literally just over the limit that would qualify us for it. It's families that are in our position that suffer. If you are 'poor' you get medicaid, if you are well off you can afford insurance. It's the people in the middle that have the problems.

I have a health issue right now and I really should see a doctor. But.............I can't afford to. I really cannot as I know it will lead to tests that will cost thousands and I have already $6,000 (just for 2 five minute CT scans) owing to a hospital due to tests done after complications of surgery.

Also back in England my son had medication for his disability. It cost me nothing in England to go the pharmacist to get his drugs. I take the same prescription to pharmacies here and they quote me $450+ to fill his prescription for just one month. We have had to change a medication that really worked well, to one that is more affordable.

Saying that, being in hospital in the States is kinda like being in a hotel. When my daughter was born, my husband and I were rewarded with a Steak dinner in a private restaurant room courtesy of the hospital. Yeah right!

The medical system here does need tweaking a lot. I can't see what is so wrong with Obama's plan in the fact that it will give people who are not able to provide for themselves the necessary medical care that they need. People in England may die by having to wait for treatment, but people in the US die because they can't afford the treatment and are scared to get into so much debilitating debt.

That's my take and experience on this issue.

[Jamie123]

Living in England, social medicine didn’t work and know many sought out private health care.

You might think that the "NHS was a mistake" if your only information on the subject came from listening to Daniel Hannan's rants. (Or from a minority of people who do have genuine cause for dissatisfaction: I'm not doubting they exist. No system is perfect.) I can only speak from my own experience of the NHS, which has been universally good.

My daughter was born in an NHS hospital, and I have only praise for the doctors, nurses and midwives who looked after my wife, and for the prenatal care my baby got when she was suffering from jaundice. There is no way we could have paid for that. We'd have been bankrupted.

Also being an asthmatic, I have often needed medical care would have broken our family finances if we'd had to pay for it privately. I can't say the NHS was a "mistake" or "didn't work" when I have such good reason to be thankful for it.

[bytor2112]

Maya,

Most Americans would agree that health care should be reformed. However, the 2000 plus page bills being bandied about in Congress have likely not even been read by the members that will vote on it and most Americans really don't have a clue what the bills entail. President Obama promised bi-partisanship and transparency, neither of which have occurred.

The fear is getting it wrong and ruining healthcare for everyone. The quality of health care is fine, the cost is prohibitive. I pay $269.00 per month for my family of four major medical coverage, but, the same coverage, with the same company, might cost three times that amount. Many believe there are better solutions than a government take over.

The biggest problem that the Obama administration has had is Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Obama and the Democratic leaders have done a horrible job of telling the American people exactly what they are to receive, when, how much it cost and how we will pay for it. We currently have unsustainable debt in this country, 10% unemployment and a stimulus bill that, thus far has not created jobs.

I think many Americans that support and that oppose healhcare reform in it's current rendering believe that we are ultimately going to have a system like Canada. The truth is....who knows...because they haven't really told us. Shame on them for not being completely upfront and candid about the details.

I am ALL for reform, BUT, I need details. It is an enormous segment of the economy and we MUST get this one right.

[bytor2112]

Maya,

Most Americans would agree that health care should be reformed. However, the 2000 plus page bills being bandied about in Congress have likely not even been read by the members that will vote on it and most Americans really don't have a clue what the bills entail. President Obama promised bi-partisanship and transparency, neither of which have occurred.

The fear is getting it wrong and ruining healthcare for everyone. The quality of health care is fine, the cost is prohibitive. I pay $269.00 per month for my family of four major medical coverage, but, the same coverage, with the same company, might cost three times that amount in another state. Many believe there are better solutions than a government take over.

The biggest problem that the Obama administration has had is Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Obama and the Democratic leaders have done a horrible job of telling the American people exactly what they are to receive, when, how much it cost and how we will pay for it. We currently have unsustainable debt in this country, 10% unemployment and a stimulus bill that, thus far has not created jobs.

I think many Americans that support and that oppose healhcare reform in it's current rendering believe that we are ultimately going to have a system like Canada. The truth is....who knows...because they haven't really told us. Shame on them for not being completely upfront and candid about the details.

I am ALL for reform, BUT, I need details. It is an enormous segment of the economy and we MUST get this one right.

[john doe]

I will agree that US healthcare needs reform, but not a total destruction, meltdown and overhaul. But as has been stated, the people who are sponsoring the changes right now are not being tranparent, are not even allowing congress read the bill before voting on it, and are not interested in obtaining input from their constituents on whether the people want the changes they are making. The latest bill that went through the senate, with the attendant bribes to certain senators to receive extra perks for their states that other states will not be eligible to receive, makes it apparent that the process is not about doing what is right, but in pushing things through to help themselves politically. We were promised transparency and public input in the process, and those things have not happened.

[ferretrunner]

Maya,

Good post. I am not against healthcare reform but I don't like President Obama's plan. There are too many compromises that, in the long run, will harm the quality of healthcare in the US. Personally, I think a sliding fee scale for insurance is more practical. But, let's administer it on the state level, not national. The larger the beauracray (however that's spelled), the more complicated it is to receive care. They also dropped the public option. Part of the plan right now would require everyone to carry (and pay) for health coverage. Some of our lower income workers would be harmed by this decision. One consideration is taxing our "deluxe" insurance. It would cost workers whose employers pay part of their premium money in taxes. I am also concerned that many employers would drop health care from their benefits altogether, thus leaving more expenses on the backs of the workers.

I think part of the outcry also reflects American pyschology- some good, some bad. America is more individualistic than many other nations. Unfortunately, this often goes the way of selfishness. "Me, then family, then maybe community- but only if I don't have to pay more in taxes." The individualism is also what encourages us to strive. We're brought up to believe "work hard enough, you'll succeed." THat's not necessarily the truth, because in reality, everyone is not made equally. Some have more talents and more opportunities than others. And some people's skills lay in more manual labor- needed, but not high paying. So, if you need financial support- or government health care- you're not "working hard enough." Or so goes the logic.

I agree there needs to be some sort of reform in healthcare. But, I don't agree with how President Obama is going about it.

[bytebear]

For me, it's not about what system is used, it's about forcing the entire country to use the single system being proposed. The US is unique in that it is made up of 50 nearly sovereign states where each can try different systems, and we as citizens can choose the program that best works for our region. We shouldn't rely on a one size fits all solution. It's basically the old adage of putting all your eggs in one basket.

Part of the reason a Republican was elected in Massachusetts was because they tried universal health care and it didn't work. Now, at least that only affected one state, instead of all 50. So, let the states decide what works best fot them, and then let the 50 programs learn from each other.

But, aside from that, we should be handling the needs of the less fortunate through private charities, and not through government forced giving. No one learns to love through force.

[Maya]

Thank you so muchtrhis has been very interesting and enlightening.

Sali I really can understand your point... I always ahve been there too too rih to be poor but too poor to purchase it myself. I should ahve sold my house and used my money...

The rest that is a LOT of money for insurances... And I dont even know what part of my taxes goest o healtcare... I pay of my salary taxes about 1/3. And what do I get for it? Now they ar putting up the road taxating stations everywhere and teh first one was set up when I came to Norway adn they said they will take it away as soon as the way was paidfor... HAH... now there are stations all over Norway some cost even 7$ one way! These close to me 3$, only when entering Oslo.. you can drive out of town for FREE!

I just was at a special doctor cost me 50$ (or25 depennds on the exchange rate today) Yes for a specialist very cheep, but we pay about 20$ each doctor visit. I think that is ok... completely without charge is not good. Even though IF you use some 150$(70$) you et the reat of the year free. Medicines are an other thing.. my dh got a salve that cost 80$(40$) a tiny little tube!

Obama has a funny way of doing his business if he dont tell what he has promised to.... suspicious! I can see now why people dont like the plan.

I can also understand that the states are all diffeernt... like here all countries in Europe. They are trying to make a United States of Europa but things that work in Spain dont work up here. And I think it is pretty much the same over there. The EU is mostly a bad thing. Usually it all ends up in that the Northern countries doing what was decided to teh point, to and south not...

Life is difficult cant wait til the Law of Consecration comes again...

[rameumptom]

Maya,

Most Americans, and LDS, agree that the health care siutation in America needs to be fixed. The problem is, the major bills that the Obama administration and Democratic Congress have been passing in the last year seem to be a lot of expense with little bang for the buck.

The Democratic Congress' health bill (Obama has had little to do with it) has major issues. It is over 2700 pages. It includes pay offs/bribes to Democrats, such as $300 million to Louisiana and $100 million to Nebraska's senators (for their constituents). If it is such a good bill, why must we pay such huge bribes?

Second, it does not reduce costs in the long run. It reduces costs for about 7 years, however the benefits don't kick for almost 5 years. After Obama's second term, the costs balloon out of control. It takes $400 billion from Medicare, which is already underfunded by several trillions of dollars. We are basically adding hundreds of billions to our deficit over the short term.

Third, it doesn't solve growing costs. It doesn't fix tort suits. It doesn't provide real competition between insurance companies. It doesn't reduce costs for hospitals, drugs, etc.

There are other major reasons why this bill is bad.

What can we do?

How about the following:

1. A patient's bill of rights, ensuring no one can be denied health insurance, and no insurance company can charge more than 25% extra for a person with health issues.

2. Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines, creating a truly competitive environment.

3. Provide all American families a health care voucher for basic level insurance that must be accepted by any insurance company. Insurance companies must provide a minimum coverage for this, but can offer more benefits as a competitive incentive to get customers. Allow people to buy additional insurance for themselves, or their companies can purchase additional insurance for them.

5. Tort Reform. Cap the amount of a law suit, and cap the profits any attorneys can make from it.

These are ideas that will reduce costs and keep us involved in a free market.

[Dravin]

I agree with the sentiment that it isn't so much an issue (for me, there are those who object to it based on being against providing health care) of reforming health care, or providing it, but of how it is to be done.

[Moksha]

If someone in the US does not have money they can get state medical coverage as Medicaid.

States have some discretion in determining which groups their Medicaid programs will cover and the financial criteria for Medicaid eligibility. To be eligible for Federal funds, states are required to provide Medicaid coverage for most people who get Federally assisted income maintenance payments, as well as for related groups not getting cash payments. Some examples of the mandatory Medicaid eligibility groups include the following:

• • Limited income families with children, as described in Section 1931 of the Social Security Act, who meet certain of the eligibility requirements in the state's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) plan in effect on July 16, 1996;
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients (or in States using more restrictive criteria--aged, blind, and disabled individuals who meet criteria which are more restrictive than those of the SSI program and which were in place in the State's approved Medicaid plan as of January 1, 1972);
  • Infants born to Medicaid-eligible pregnant women. Medicaid eligibility must continue throughout the first year of life so long as the infant remains in the mother's household and she remains eligible, or would be eligible if she were still pregnant;
  • Children under age 6 and pregnant women whose family income is at or below 133% of the Federal poverty level. (The minimum mandatory income level for pregnant women and infants in certain States may be higher than 133% percent, if as of certain dates the State had established a higher percentage for covering those groups.) States are required to extend Medicaid eligibility until age 19 to all children born after September 30, 1983 (or such earlier date as the State may choose) in families with incomes at or below the Federal poverty level. Once eligibility is established, pregnant women remain eligible for Medicaid through the end of the calendar month in which the 60th day after the end of the pregnancy falls, regardless of any change in family income. States are not required to have a resource test for these poverty level related groups. However, any resource test imposed can be no more restrictive than that of the AFDC program for infants and children and the SSI program for pregnant women;
  • Recipients of adoption assistance and foster care under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act;
  • Certain people with Medicare; and
  • Special protected groups who may keep Medicaid for a period of time. Some examples include people who lose SSI payments due to earnings from work or increased Social Security benefits; and families who are provided 6 to 12 months of Medicaid coverage following loss of eligibility under Section 1931 due to earnings, or 4 months of Medicaid coverage following loss of eligibility under Section 1931 due to an increase in child or spousal support

Getting medicaid is not easy and only some qualify as seen in the HHS statement.

[applepansy]

By this rule there should be no government-controlled law enforcement. Since police prevent crime they deprive would-be criminals of their free agency not to commit offences.

Exactly... The City of Enoch is an example that comes to mind.

[Jamie123]

Exactly... The City of Enoch is an example that comes to mind.

I'm not familiar with the City of Enoch (I'll read up on it when I've got more time). But that's a very interesting opinion. Is it true therefore that the Church doesn't approve of law enforcement, and any church members employed as police officers should resign? Or should they stand around while crimes are committed, and only rush in and arrest the perpetrators after the event?

(P.S. I'm not trying to have a go at you Apple. I like you a lot. I'm just a little whacked-out by this line of thinking.)

Edited February 18, 2010 by Jamie123

[Guest]

I'm not familiar with the City of Enoch (I'll read up on it when I've got more time). But that's a very interesting opinion. Is it true therefore that the Church doesn't approve of law enforcement, and any church members employed as police officers should resign? Or should they stand around while crimes are committed, and only rush in and arrest the perpetrators after the event?

(P.S. I'm not trying to have a go at you Apple. I like you a lot. I'm just a little whacked-out by this line of thinking.)

You've mentioned this a couple times on this thread so I thought I'd respond to it. I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if I get discordant with what the discussion is about.

There is a big difference with law enforcement/crime prevention and healthcare.

This country is not a pure democracy - as in, "majority rule". It is run by "rule of law". This law got defined in the Constitution with leeway to improve on. The Bill of Rights (extension of the declaration of independence) guarantee every individual in the United States of America the right to their lives, their liberty, their property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Law enforcement is a REQUIRED element of a society "ruled by law". Without enforcement, you can kiss the law good-bye. That is, you will forfeit your rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, because the law has no teeth.

But, just because the Bill of Rights guarantee our right to life, that doesn't mean that we have the right to take away from somebody so that we can prolong our own lives. It means that we have the right to protect ourselves from people who would threaten our lives.

The pursuit of happiness does not mean that we are guaranteed happiness. What it means is that the law protects your choices in trying to pursue what makes you happy. Now, if what makes you happy is something that will cause somebody else to be unhappy, then that right is questionable - because, as my father likes to say, your rights end where somebody's nose begins...

Healthcare as it stands now, is in this boat. Because, for somebody to get free healthcare, somebody else would have to pay through the nose for it.