Monday, August 31, 2009

Health care-funding the revolt to freedom

[This is the fourth in a series of articles dealing with the issues involved in the health care debate. For readers who wish to read or review the previous posts, here are the links: 1.) Health care needs a revolt to freedom, not socialism, 2.) Health care- what the revolt to freedom requires, 3.) A health care approach based on responsible individual freedom]


Judging by some of the responses I've received to the previous posts in this health care series, I think it's important to make it clear that the illustrative features I talked about in my last post are not suggested components of some government run health care scheme. I oppose the government takeover of the health sector. It should also be clear from the ideas I've outlined that I oppose perpetuating the third party payer system in any form, whether as a single payer government run approach, or in continuation of the existing private corporate structure. One of the keys to improving the health sector's cost efficiency is to restore the responsible decision-making role of individual payers, so that price signals in the health market once again reflect the aggregate response of buyers to the sufficiency, quality and cost efficiency of the goods and services available to them in the health marketplace.

The ideas presented are also intended to illustrate possible ways of activating another key to cost efficiency, which involves recognizing that those who seek the health sector's ultimate product (health) also play a critical role in producing it. Like production workers in any other economic sector they must accept their responsibility for carefully and efficiently executing their part in the production process. And like other production workers, they need a work environment that offers tangible incentives for them to do so.

Unfortunately the discussion of health care reform has bogged down because of proposals based on outdated nineteenth and twentieth century concepts of economic activity. According to these concepts, the world is divided between workers and owners, managers and resources (including human resources), producers and consumers. By contrast, the paradigm of twenty-first century economic activity has begun to emerge most distinctly on the internet. The very concept of networking outruns the dialecticism of the past. The components of a network are at one and the same time consumers and providers of information. As conduits for its flow, they also modify, redirect and reshape its contents for different purposes, in a way that defies and transcends the distinction between consumption and production. On this account, the very idea of 'ownership' has to acquire new flexibility, so as not to interfere with the flow, modification and exchange of information that creates the network's activities and their economic value.

Social networking internet activities like Facebook are a good illustration of this new reality. The people who turned the Facebook software engine into a profitable enterprise mainly depend on advertising for their revenues. In a sense, such sites are like fairgrounds or expositions. Because they generate a large flow of visitors businesses will pay for the privilege of advertising their goods and services to the passing crowds. However, who produces the shows and other activities that attract the crowd? It's the visitors themselves. They gather in order to show off to one another, with photos, videos, writings, conversation etc. To be sure, just as the performing artists in other media (TV or the theater for example) enjoy what they do, the performers on the social network get pleasure (entertainment value) from their participation. But they also provide the attractions that gather the crowd. They are at one and the same time performers and spectators, producers and consumers, workers who own and manage an enterprise that is, in many respects, identical with themselves.

(At the moment, by the way, the economic model for internet activities takes no proper account of this new reality. But thus far unsuccessful attempts by Facebook and others to impose fees for services that people have hitherto obtained without charge are symptoms that the existing model is facing pressures that will inevitably lead to its modification. The new model will doubtless have to recognize and make use of the fact that charges people resist when they see themselves as consumers become logical and palatable as part of a paradigm that recognizes and remunerates the indispensable contribution they make as performers and producers. As consumers, they may be loath to pay admission to be part of a performance they themselves help make possible (that's like making performers pay for admission to a benefit concert for which they freely provide all the entertainment) But if they share in the profits generated by its existence, they will more cooperatively pay something toward maintenance and operating expenses for the privilege of realizing their share of the advertising revenue that is going at present entirely to someone else.)

The idea of replacing existing insurance policies with individually owned health provident accounts aims to initiate the health sector's move to a twenty-first century paradigm of economic activity. Ironically, though it represents a major change in the administrative structure of health care finance, in other respects the funding structure for those who presently earn employer funded access to health insurance as part of their pay would remain pretty much as it is. Some questions (like portability, for instance) would take care of themselves, since individual ownership of the health provident account means that the relationship between the insurance fund manager and the individual would be unaffected by changes in employment. Employers would pay the insurance fund manager in the name of the employee, just as they do now. But just as someone's employer doesn't decide where they have their checking or savings account, the employer would not decide where the employees establish their health provident fund accounts. This would in no way prevent employers from developing and promoting plans in concert with a particular insurance fund management firm. If the resulting cost and services package was attractive enough, a large number of their employees would sensibly prefer it. But the decision between competing fund management firms would be made by the individuals themselves.

This also opens the way to the creation of contributor pools based on associations and affiliations apart from work. Individuals could form such groups drawing from people in similar circumstances in their church, their service, fraternal or sorority groups, etc. Those who work for small and medium size businesses, for example, would take whatever level of contribution they receive from their employer and go in search of others being funded at a similar level. Once a large enough initial pool has gathered, the sponsoring organization would work out terms with an insurance fund provider, just as larger employers do now. Such groups would doubtless become a permanent feature of the system, identifying themselves with people at different income levels in order to appeal for their participation. So in addition to choosing among competing insurance fund providers, individuals would choose among different contributor group plans to find a package suited to their funding level and needs. Plan groups might be named after a particular employer (the GE plan, the Ford plan, etc.) or after a particular religious denomination, union or service organization (the Southern Baptist Association plan, the AFL-CIO plan, the Kiwanis plan, etc.)

In considering all this, it's important to keep in mind that any ideas I put forward are just for illustrative purposes. The good thing about a structure that empowers people for freedom is that it gives them the opportunity to think out and explore possibilities no one else would see.

A crucial question remains to be considered. How can we make provision for the people who, for economic or other reasons, are in no position to obtain employer funding for a health provident account? There will always be people with characteristics that make them rather like the kids on the playground that nobody wants on their team. Wouldn't the government have to step in to provide the funding and negotiate a group plan on behalf of indigent, infirm or high risk individuals or families? Government funding appears unavoidable, however, only to those who assume that there are no people with surplus resources to invest who would take an interest in helping to provide for the hard cases simply because it's a chance to do some good. The world is full of the foundations and institutes launched and sustained by resources people provided for no other purpose than to do some good. Folks like Gertrude Himmelfarb have done painstaking work suggesting that such good will may be relied upon to meet certain kinds of needs.

Indeed, for centuries, the provision of health services to people in need was a particular focus of well doing in cultures under the influence of Biblical morality. In communities throughout the United States the names of hospitals and medical centers call to mind their Biblical roots (Holy Cross, Shady Grove Adventist, Lutheran Memorial, Methodist Hospital, Mercy Hospital, Good Samaritan, Cedars-Sinai and many others that make an impressive list of saints' names and Biblical places.) The remarkable thing about our time isn't that ten percent of our people may have no assured access to health services, it's that (even by the estimates the socialists use to justify a government takeover) as many as 90% do. A Significant proportion of the system that achieved this result was built and maintained by the faith and goodwill of people in the private sector. Why should we believe that a government takeover is the only way to take care of the people not yet included?

Of course, as a matter of public order, safety and happiness it's natural for the sovereign (in this case the people as a whole) to take an interest in the health facilities of the society. The first care would be to do nothing that unnecessarily constrains or creates impediments for the existence and proper functioning of those facilities. The next would be to assure against malfeasance and abuse, through the civil courts and enforcement of relevant criminal statutes. But just as people have done with respect to education since the earliest years of the republic, so with health care, it makes sense for the government to make sure that, in the exercise of its proper powers and the conduct of its activities, it favors and supports those private activities judged most conducive to the public good.

In one of the famous Federalist papers (no. 36) Alexander Hamilton alludes to the fact that it is a feature of wise tax policy to work in such a way that the surplus of the rich contributes to the activities that address the situation of those in need. He was not suggesting anything like the schemes of confiscatory income taxation the socialists are so fond of. He was discussing the fact that the imposition of excise taxes on the items of more discretionary consumption accessible to those with greater surplus resources "coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens." Without the need to develop and sustain the costs of an expensive, cumbersome and ineffective government administration, wise tax policy can second the good impulses of private individuals. It can thereby increase and help to sustain their commitment to actions that aid those who might otherwise be neglected. Thus it fulfills the proper hope of those who wield sovereign power, which is to serve, insofar as possible, the good of all the people.

In this regard the first aim of public policy would be to encourage adoption of an approach to health insurance that restores the proper role of individual freedom and responsibility. One way to achieve this would be to exempt from Federal taxation in every respect those who adopted an approach consistent with this objective. This would include both the insurance funds themselves (both as to the individually owned accounts and the investments or other income generating activities related to the general funds) and the transactions involved in their use.

This exemption could include allowing health insurance companies to emit tax-free financial securities (similar to tax-free municipal bonds) with the particular intention of raising capital for use in funding individual accounts for the 'hard cases'. Such bonds could then be marketed with particular attention to charity minded individuals. Instead of scoffing at the idea that needs should be met through charitable giving, this policy would aim to make charity a marketable commodity, that allows good intentions to feed upon themselves in order to nourish and increase the resources available to fulfill them.

As with the desirable features sketched out in the previous article in this series, this suggestion is simply meant to illustrate an approach consistent with individual liberty and responsibility. People with greater knowledge and expertise, encouraged to think along these lines, will doubtless come up with better tailored proposals. Unfortunately, the present focus on socialist concepts doesn't offer such encouragement. Stuck in the rut of archaic nineteenth and twentieth century thinking, the current health care policy debate doesn't encourage the development of decentralized approaches based on individual goodwill and initiative, approaches that would be far more in synch with the opportunities and possibilities that can be empowered by twenty-first century networking and globally targeted niche-marketing techniques.

Aside from being more up-to-date, such twenty-first century ideas would also take account of the timeless moral principles that must be respected when dealing with life and death matters like health care. As we have noted, one of the reasons for mounting opposition to the Obama faction's socialist proposals is the perception that banal bureaucratic calculation would usurp the judgment of concerned and loving individuals when it comes to dealing with the health crises of family members and other loved ones. Though the perception attaches to particular provisions of the Obama proposal, the concern is properly raised with respect to any health care approach that displaces individual freedom and responsibility. Bureaucracies may or may not reliably make decisions that are better informed or more consistent with cost-effectiveness. They will never reliably make decisions with greater love. Love must reflect the voluntary commitment of individuals to the welfare and happiness of other individuals. The works of love transcend rules and calculations, at least in part because the rationale of love takes as its denominator a being perceived to be of infinite worth. The value of an individual's life can therefore never be quantified or measured by any ruler except the loving heart. Beyond the requirements of justice, by respecting individual freedom and responsibility we make it more likely that our approach to health care gives love its due.

17 comments:

gilbertabrett said...

As a comment to your last post, Dr. Keyes, all I can say is JESUS and tingling ears...

Same response to all the pomp and circumstance afforded to a man at his funeral who payed for people to fall down before him at the price of so many others' lives... Sad and disgraceful...

If we, as Christians, were not so timid and full of fright, we would stand up to the few who have taken control of OUR country and turned GOD out at every chance. It is the Christians who have always come up to bat when things seemed impossible - even to a working single mother whose child needs $100,000 worth of surgery. Is anything too hard for GOD???

We still have the power but are afraid to use it - or too slow? And I am not just talking about the millions of Christians in this country WHO MAKE THINGS RUN, but the power of the HOLY SPIRIT! JESUS says we will do greater things than HE. When is the last time you saw a man raised from the dead or a woman released from evil spirits or a child's hand restored? Oh I know it happens, but few and far between in this country.

We like to sit and look at each others' nice suits or jump up and down to see who can be the most spirit filled or talk real loud at the pulpit or be "financially prosperous" or any of the other number of things that we have turned Christianity to in America. But when it comes to rolling up the sleeves and getting down into the mud... those people are dying faster than they can be replaced.

You talk about health care. Parents don't even MAKE their kids go to church with them. Many give their children a "choice." A choice to go to hell...

And as I have said before - anyone who does not even know when his OWN two daughters actually became human, well how in the world would any logical person think he could figure out anything else? DUMB...

I read "Of Toms And Sambos" too. It was an eye opening read. Also listened to Pastor Stephen Broden from Les Femmes' blog. Powerful things going on across this country. But we better get a little more on the ball. Ole Massa is back from his PAID vacation and we should be in for another catastrophe any day now...

MaryAnnH said...

Tears sting my eyes as I ponder and reflect on my own experience with "socialized medicine." Not by government but by health insurance claims bureaucrats. Would I still be disabled if I had access to the procedures and equipment that have been denied as "not medically necessary?" Only God knows.

Larry Walker Jr said...

I would be in favor of a health care system based on 'binary economics', where the health insurance companies are owned by its subscribers. Much like ESOPS, if the insurance company makes a profit, all the members benefit in the form of dividends. [Actually most of the Blue Cross Blue Shield companies are co-ops owned by the insured, not by outside investors.]

Making choices such as according to trade associations, alumni associations, etc.., and portability would be essential.

As for the uninsurable, a government option makes sense, but only with tight controls based on low-income and/or un-insurability. The incentive would be to get off of the government program and join one of the co-ops (trusts).

Prices should decline as more people are incentivized to get insurance, as they will view it as an investment rather than just a drain on resources. The larger the co-op (trust), the more powerful in negotiating costs.

I like your non-linear approach on this.

Barbara D. Crone said...

I guess I'm still wondering why health care is the govt.'s business. Should we be buying into this at all? It reminds me too much of the slow encroachment of psychology into the church. I keep asking, "How come God isn't enough anymore?"

chiu_chunling said...

I sense a profound danger in attempting to systematically articulate the nature of 21st century economics. The central point is that what is genuinely new has (as ever) come about as a result of the aggregate free choices of hundreds of millions of individual actors, responding to their individual circumstances.

There may be a fascinating study to be made here, but those who love freedom need not pursue it. The evidence that the free market works to produce abundance and variety, and that every attempt to interfere with it produces the opposite, is sufficiently conclusive already. Those who are not yet intellectually convinced of the superiority of the free market fall into two broad (and significantly overlapping) categories.

The first is those who are not interested in any reasoned argument based on the already overwhelming evidence. Some of these may genuinely be intellectually incapable of understanding such arguments, others most likely simply prefer other entertainments. In any case you are not going to persuade these people with more elaborate reasoning, they belong to the unconvinced because the existing argument is already too complicated for them.

The second category is those who are not really interested in fostering the abundance and variety which is the product of the free market, but basically want to take control of it for themselves, even if that means destroying it. There is a certain very distinct element of primitive envy here, a desire to make everyone else worse off rather than improve their own lot. There is even serious argument that making everyone else worse off, by improving their situation in purely relative terms, is thus a legitimate aim.

As I said, there is substantial overlap between these groups. But neither group is going to be persuaded by more intricate arguments about the role of the free market in producing wealth. Those who don't already understand how wealth is produced will not be able to follow your argument, and those more interested in exclusive control of wealth rather than its production already know that their plan involves destroying all the wealth they don't control.

It is time to realize that we are no longer debating the nature and sources of economic productivity. The current debate isn't about money or health care, it's about control over life and death decisions. Some people are willing to give up their freedom to avoid individual responsibility, others seek to abolish all freedom as a means to deny their otherwise undeniable culpability.

But indulging in such insights into the motives of the enemy is itself a distraction. You needn't concern yourself with why your enemies seek to destroy freedom. You must simply and clearly point out the essential nature of what they are doing.

Discussing the details of how to refine and promote freedom in health care options can and must wait until you have exposed and defeated those who seek to destroy freedom entirely. When a madman breaks into your midst and starts trying to murder everyone present, all other activities--however worthy--must be suspended until you subdue the madman. Including discussion of the causes of this madness.

This is the situation you face. These people are, for whatever reason, trying to fatally undermine the integrity of your nation (as well as others). Tens of millions will die if you do not stop them. Indeed, they have acutely expressed their sense that billions must die for their broader aims to be accomplished.

You must confront this fact, if you are to have any hope of thwarting them. Or even simply securing your own survival.

Alan Keyes said...

chiu_chunling:
I do not disagree with your analysis of the crux of the situation we are in. At the moment, however, I believe it is still possible to deal with the threat to freedom by electoral means. In that respect, opposition to the prospect of health care tyranny is certainly awakening people to the need for action. But this merely negative reaction will lead (as it has in the past) to the willingness to swap one set of freedom destroying devils for another. I think the effort to remind people of the policy relevance of the positive good we seek to preserve, in the practical context of major issues like the debate over health care, is essential in this regard. It's also helpful to offer ideas that help focus attention on the fact that, with visions of a false utopia, would be tyrants are tempting us to discard freedom at the very moment technology is developing in a way that greatly enhances its already considerable economic potency.
As a means to economic success, freedom has proven superior. It did not do so as the result of any historical or other determinism, but as the consequence of actions governed by conscious, moral choice (like the actions of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.) Such choice always considers motives- not the enemy's, but our own.
That's why even in the midst of battle, the good sovereign (meaning in our case, the citizens who form the sovereign body of the American people) keeps an eye on the public good sovereign power is supposed to serve. If we seek to defeat the enemy regardless of that good (i.e., without having that good as our motive), we will probably end up sacrificing it to achieve victory. Thus in fighting the enemy, we will do the work of the enemy. I left the Republican party when it became clear that the supposedly well intentioned Republican leaders (not the ones pretty openly in agreement with the other side) insist on leading actually well intentioned citizens into this trap.

Alan Keyes said...

Barbara D. Crone:
I don't think health care is properly the government's business, though the public's health is obviously a proper concern of those who wield sovereign power for the public good.
God is enough, but we must respect His intention for us.
The Bible suggests that, as human beings, He meant for us to tend the garden of His creation. Christ's teaching makes it clear that this includes caring for one another, for God's sake. Using the intelligence God gave us to care for the strength and health of our bodies is part of this vocation. So good health care is part of our business as human beings.

When God made the world, He supplied in it the food we need for nourishment. But even before the Fall Adam and Eve had to reach out for the fruit themselves (though this left open the opportunity to sin.)

This responsibility for right action is part of God's intention for our nature. His will is enough for our good, but He requires that we second the motion of His goodwill with our own.

As we stand with respect to God, so government stands with respect to the will of the sovereign body of the people. It should not take seek to substitute its determinations for ours (government power for individual responsibility), but when the people make a motion, the government's actions may properly second the motion they have made.

I developed the ideas presented in the postings on health care with this in mind.

gilbertabrett said...

Dr. Keyes, do you believe King Hussein believes he IS doing the right thing according to your second to last paragraph to Barbara? I have heard him (and other Democrats) say he won a mandate from the American people - sort of sounding like he is NOT one... I also question where all this "health care" fits into the Constitution and why people are so quick to believe whatever they hear IS the job of our government without reading the document that is SUPPOSED to give them the authority to hold the offices they do.

I understand times and technology have changed, but the human HEART has not. When the men who wrote our Constitution sat down to ponder and discuss this document, they had health issues too, but was there a reason WHY they did not get into things such as Social Security, Medicare, Fannies and Freddies? Surely it was not because GOD had failed (when HE does NOT) to provide prudence in such matters when HE had so adequately provided on every other segment of our government.

I hear all the time about abortion and the Constitution not addressing that issue, yet people seem to find other things in the Constitution that are not there and force them on us. They act as if no one ever had an issue with "unwanted" pregnancy, rape or incest in the early years of our country. Like I said, the human heart has NOT changed. Men and women did what they did back then too - perhaps not as much and not as open, but it STILL HAPPENED. There was a significantly different moral character in our nation because we were REAL Christians. Maybe not all, but MOST. And even those who were not had the sense that they were in better hands with Christians than not.

I, personally, do NOT want the government to have ANY control over the health of me OR my family. They have enough control with how they allow our water to be continually poisoned, as well as our food. They promote poison all day long on TV, giving us choices of pills for EVERYTHING and yet will not even promote herbs and vitamins, actually working against the things (once again) that GOD made and are in abundant supply to help us take care of ourselves.

This joke about "health care" is exactly that - a joke. It is not about health, but about money and power. They do not care about us being healthy because there is WAY too much money to be made in keeping us sick and dependent. How else would they maintain THEIR lifestyles if they did not have millions of people dependent on them and other millions giving taxes up to pay for their extravagant lifestyles?

Anyone who thinks this is a good thing and agrees to this travesty is going to get exactly what they deserve.

nail-in-the-wall said...

Dear Alan, there you go again,.. what a piece of work,.. trying to lift the barriers of responsible (moral) 'ownership'!

“.... in the spirit of peaceful revolutionaries. Our goal should be to support and transform the economic barriers through “capitalistic economic expansion". …we do not mean “Expanded Capital Ownership” approach is a universally applicable one. However, it illustrates the principles and concepts through which democracy can build a firm social foundation for economic cooperation and growth. Ownership need not be a reality confined to the wealthy few or an all-powerful state." – Dr. Alan Keyes, July 21, 1986

I would second Larry Walkers comments - a true 'binary economic' model must be endorsed (period).

"We do not have a health care crisis, economic crisis, energy crisis, we have a crisis of ignorance." - Buck Minster Fuller

“Democratic Capitalism”, now their's a novel idea… never tried. [Review, Americas Tragedy -AIPnews.com].

Let US turn 'subsidiarity' on it's ear.

America, Own or be Owned.

chiu_chunling said...

I feel a sense of perplexity as I try to analyze the particulars of the general topic of health care, partly because of my unusual perspective on the subject itself, but also as a result of the distortion such a question suffers as a result of being considered as a matter of government policy.

But I think I have discovered an important distinction between my own general position and many others. I regard freedom itself, the power to make choices with real determinative implications for one's own destiny, as the primary good which all other goods exist to facilitate. I realize that freedom tends to improve access to all other things that are generally considered good, but insofar as those things can be considered truly good it is because they increase freedom in return.

The view that freedom is a means rather than an end in itself seems to gain support from the fact that freedom produces so much that is good, and is necessary to the enjoyment of almost all other goods. In that view, the fact that freedom can also produce and allow what is clearly bad forms a justification for the careful limitation of freedom.

But...the essential aspect of every evil we might seek to prevent is found in how it limits the freedom of some persons. In combating such destruction of freedom by imposing restrictions on freedom, we are very much in the position of fighting fire with fire.

This is sometimes a reasonable or even necessary strategy. But I remain cautious about falling into the belief that it is always necessary or reasonable.

Thus I must disagree with the substance of the statement that "As a means to economic success, freedom has proven superior. It did not do so as the result of any historical or other determinism, but as the consequence of actions governed by conscious, moral choice (like the actions of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.)" I may agree with certain details of that statement, such as the fact that the efficacy of freedom has often been achieved by keeping in view certain goods which were to be achieved thereby. But it is my belief that consistent, careful attention to the nature and value of freedom itself would have achieved superior results, both for preserving freedom and for producing all those goods which are its fruits.

Being subject to the natural consequences of our own choices is one of the essential aspects of freedom, because it is only through the existence of such consequences that our choices can be meaningful, and only through receiving them that our freedom becomes our own. When we understand this, we are prepared to combat the most prevalent errors which attempt to destroy freedom by decrying it's destructive potential or by setting up a false idea of liberty.

The popular idea of freedom often involves escape from the consequences of one's chosen actions. But if we are insulated from the results of our previous decisions, an essential component of the cybernetic process (which defines all sentient activity, including freedom) is lost. The corrective feedback loop is usually what separates a cybernetic process from a simple causal process.

On the other hand, the general idea that freedom is destructive is supported only when one conflates irrational causal processes with free sentient activity. But those who act without regard for the consequences of their behavior, because those consequences do not affect themselves, are not truly free in the most essential sense of the term. If they are not subject to the outcomes their own behavior creates, they are essentially dependent on the behavior of others for the outcomes they experience.

gilbertabrett said...

Rep. Bobby Jones graced us with his bright appearance this evening in southeastern VA. Yay...

As one of his intelligent rebuttals, he informed us that part of the federal government's job is to provide for the general welfare. And since we are so stupid that we did not know that, he actually read it to us. Wasn't that so benevolent of he? In that reading, I guess he was proving that he too could provide for our general welfare... you know, actually reading for us...

A few people stood up and applauded him at this reply because a woman had asked him wasn't what they were doing socialism - when they try to make everyone the same and have the same and equal "health care."

Of course, none of these idiots know what general welfare means. I guess they think that over 200 years ago the framers were talking about welfare - you know, welfare like you have 12 kids by 8 daddies and, well you get the picture...

And how much money from YOUR tax dollars go to the Department of Education every year?

gilbertabrett said...

Oops... I meant Rep. Bobby Scott in the last comment... sorry Dr. Bobby Jones. I did not mean to insult you personally or professionally.

Terry Morris said...

Gilbertabrett,

I think the actual phrase is "promote the General Welfare." There's a big difference between promoting something and providing it. Someone should have pointed that out to the jackass in question, and to the sheeple who applauded him.

Derek P. said...

Not to worry. Both government and third party payer systems are on a collision course with destiny.

As more and more 'baby boomers' move from third party systems to government run there will be increased pressure upon those private insurance companies to maintain a certain level of profitability. As I mentioned before in a previous thread, I just recently had an elder go from paying eight hundred dollars a month to a private entity to just ninety dollars a month to the government. The private entities will be very hard pressed to replace that kind of money on a wide scale. Increased denial of payment for services will become more routine, and that in turn will lead to a "revolt".

As the government Medicare rolls swell there will be an ever increasing demand to jack up taxes to meet the ever increasing medical demands of the baby boomer generation. That too will eventually meet with a "revolt", and the push to freedom will be on.

So worry not. It's just a matter of time before the two opposite direction locomotives meet in the middle.

rmadilloarctic said...

I feel like the health-care system is like a car that was involved in a fender-bender. Logic would dictate that you don't trash the car; just fix what's wrong with it. Our government wants to get rid of the car and put in its place a BMW. Now, this sounds all well and good, but the upkeep on this new car is far more than your old one and if something goes wrong, you, more often than not, have to go to the dealership, which is the American taxpayer.

I know that this is a fairly simple analogy, but it basically sums up part of what I feel about this whole health-care business.

moniquemonicat said...

Did you know that Obama is not bound by Constitutional law? The federal government became a corporation in 1933.

Hear this shocking interview by 2 legal researchers Joyce Rosewall and Rod Class (40 + 8 years experience respectively).

Fast forward the interview to around the 37 minute.

YOU WILL NEVER VIEW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE SAME WAY AGAIN:

This blog will not allow me to paste a link so please go to www.MoniqueMoniCat.wordpress.com and click on 1ST POST CALLED "BREAKING NEWS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SET UP AS A CORPORATION"

OMG!

Folks, this is the real reason why we have not been able to remove Obama from office - he's not qualified by the US Consitution, but that's because no one in the federal government is bound by it because they are set up as a CORPORATION.

the truth is that we actually do not even have a constitutional government at present.

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW START AT 37 MINUTES - YOU WILL HEAR THE DETAILS AND ALL YOU NEED.

sarah said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

http://grantfoundation.net

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.