I have concern for the type of health care and services offered from the bureaucrats, the pharmaceutical companies, and the insurance companies. In a nearly 2000 page bill there is nothing about offering a model of health services to land on the responsibility of each individual. It is all about the powers that be controlling our health concerns, rationing it, and choosing who will live and who will die based on age and state of health.
The perception that is desired for the masses to believe is that everybody has to take care of those without health care insurance. So there are those in Washington who are creating the illusion that in order for all to benefit there should be a one payer system. Now don't get side tracked here and start to suggest that is a good thing without giving it some critical thinking.
What would a structure like this look like? For starters, it will be mandatory to have the one brand of insurance. All other policies will have to go. Everyone has to have the governments/corporation insurance. Wait a minute... if there is one payer, why would we buy into the system when we pay the kind of taxes we pay... wouldn't our taxes cover universal health care???? The one payer system will have access to your bank account, and your credit report which would insure payment and assess rates according to your credit report. (This is already in effect when purchasing auto insurance.) Then to keep us safe and 'well' we will be ordered (mandated) to take vaccines or antibiotics, and will be fed food from their genetically modified crops. There will be no choices in what treatment we can have, it will be rationed, to save money when we are paying premiums for services. We will be totally controlled by a system and all freedoms will be removed.
I don't know about you, to me it looks as if someone will be profiting a great deal from all the tax money, insurance premiums, the purchasing of our medicines.
This is obviously a brief dot of the nearly 2000 page bill before congress. Those who have read it are saying it is draconian and unconstitutional. It was put together by both parties (so no finger pointing here). This legislation has one intention which is a total government take over of the health care system.
OK, now let us take a look at the other side of the coin.
Health care being the responsibility of each person who possesses a body, mind, and spirit. There are a lot of modalities out there that work together to bring about reversals of conditions that seem to be permanent. There are also a lot of alternative health therapies that can manage dis-ease effectively and with less strain on the liver, kidneys and overall balance of the body which toxic ingredients take out of balance. Choice in the manner of treatment and what modality an individual knows is best for themselves. The general population would be well educated to the care of their most prize possession, their body.
Because a lot of choices would be present, there would also be competition, which is the free market at work. Prices would be affordable. Quality would be superb. Without government rules to hide under people would practice with more ethics or they will not stay in business (no government skirt to hide under which is called the license).
If people are in a serious state of health, there would be hospitals that would be managed without the controls of government/pharmaceutical/insurance companies. America has done that in the past. We can develop a very good health care system by utilizing the talents of us all.
There is a lot of conversation to be discussed like;
- Costs of the current system.
- The monopoly the current system is under.
- Alternative modalities and how to utilize them.
- Keeping government regulators out.
- Nullifying all licensed procedures performed by the Corporate State. Certification of completion is all that would be necessary to practice. Ethics would determine one's success in their practice.
Licensing is this:
- Revenue collection from testing and licensing.
- A vector for control over health services.
- Revenue collection from fines if the health services provider treats a patient/client in a different fashion than the governing body gives permission to.
- Allowing only one method of treatment which would support the pharmaceutical industries with their chemical medications, that are not always safe or effective, and expensive. These are toxic after prolonged use, putting more demand on the body or creating a new condition of dysfunction.
- Setting up a practice, private or in a 'clinic' without interference.
- As a client, there would be choice in who to see or what type of modality is preferred.
- Educating the public to the care and concerns of the body.
- Medicines would be such things as good organic food to get necessary nutrients, herbs, homeopathic remedies, all being safe, effective, and inexpensive.
Is there a different way which offers results, no harm? Is there a way for us to have it all? The best of both worlds where freedom to choose is never abused. A system that also educates the general public to being responsibility for their own bodies health and what is important to maintain it, what is harmful for it. Teaching the public to be responsible for the choices made. That is the essence of freedom. Responsibility must be present for freedom of choice to work.
What sort of health services should we be looking for? What are your ideas?
Health care... anyone up for a discussion?