insurance problem...the new "secular church"...

Main Page | Report this Page

Religion Forum Index » Religions - Miscellaneous » insurance problem...the new "secular church"...

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

insurance problem...the new "secular church"...

Author

Message

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:58 pm

Guest

if there are 30-47 million people
who do not, now, have insurance,

and one reason that they do not have insurance
is, because, they cannot afford insurance,

it is unclear how, compelling them to purchase insurance,

will allow them to afford insurance.

which is to say, if it s not because these 30-47 million people,
are unable to find an insurance house that will insure them,
for a price, but, that, they do not have the money
to purchase insurance, outright, then, compelling -them-
to purchase insurance, does not put the money in their pockets
with which to purchanse insurance, so,

if you can afford insurance,

you must purchase a policy,

but, if you cannot afford insurance,

the government will give you a policy,

which still -sounds- like

government instituted charity,

and -some- people consider charity

to be some sort of "religious" exersize.

so, the gubbment is now our "church"

the new "secular church"

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:04 pm

Guest

Quote:

if you can afford insurance,
you must purchase a policy,
but, if you cannot afford insurance,

the government will give you a policy,
which still -sounds- like
government instituted charity,

and -some- people consider charity
to be some sort of "religious" exersize.
so, the gubbment is now our "church"
the new "secular church"

i'm not against charity

but, having the gubbment purchase insurance policies

for some people, is still, very much =like= 'charity'

and it does seem like, it is not because

these uninsured people cannot find anyone

who will insure them, but that, they don't

have the money to purchase it for themselves.

it's a charity...

muscular dystrophy foundation...

some people, are buying other people, insurance policies...

but, the "freewill" aspect seems to be circumvented...

Piet de Arcilla...

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:11 pm

Guest

On Oct 29, 3:58 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202... at (no spam) lycos.com-> wrote:

Quote:

if there are 30-47 million people
who do not, now, have insurance,

and one reason that they do not have insurance
is, because, they cannot afford insurance,

Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
insurance.

Piet de Arcilla...

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:15 pm

Guest

On Nov 1, 2:21 am, Timothy Sutter <a202... at (no spam) lycos.com-> wrote:

Quote:

Timothy Sutter wrote:

if there are 30-47 million people
who do not, now, have insurance,

and one reason that they do not have insurance
is, because, they cannot afford insurance,

Piet de Arcilla wrote:

> Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
insurance.

and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'

and make these people 'sick' and -force- them in to the sickness
industry.

We should just declare that everyone is eligible for Medicare, and
abolish the insurance industry. Then increase payroll taxes as
necessary to pay for it.

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:21 am

Guest

Quote:

Timothy Sutter wrote:

if there are 30-47 million people
who do not, now, have insurance,

and one reason that they do not have insurance
is, because, they cannot afford insurance,

Piet de Arcilla wrote:

Quote:

and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'

and make these people 'sick' and -force- them in to the sickness
industry.

but that's just the scuttlebutt...

and then there's also, of course, people like the Amish

who have no intention of buying insurance policies ever

and forcing them to purchase insurance policies would seem

to be an erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:32 am

Guest

Quote:

and then there's also, of course, people like the Amish
who have no intention of buying insurance policies ever
and forcing them to purchase insurance policies would seem
to be an erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

but anyway, i'm not a proponent of insurance mandates.

instead of studying the Amish and seeing how they 'do it'

they would like to force the Amish to buy insurance policies

against their wishes.

automobile insurance is different inasmuch as you must
gain the -privelege- to drive a car on the public roads
by getting a driver's lisence, and so, the municipal authorities

can madate automobile insurance as part of
gaining and maintaining this -privelege-,

but, you can be a citizen of the u.s. of a

without having a social security number

and you are not -required- to identify yourself

to anyone at any time.

==
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/kids/parent2.htm

Applying for a Social Security card and number
for your newborn is voluntary
==

which is to say that you do not have to identify yourself

to the civil authorities

you need no -permit- to walk down the sidewalk

in as blithe a manner as you see fit

but as you see,

"Obtain medical coverage;"
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/kids/parent2.htm

is one of the reasons to get a social security number

and so, to mandate health insurance

will also mandate the gaining of a social security number

and, such is -not- a requirement for anyone.

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:44 am

Guest

Quote:

Timothy Sutter wrote:

if there are 30-47 million people
who do not, now, have insurance,

and one reason that they do not have insurance
is, because, they cannot afford insurance,

Piet de Arcilla wrote:

Well, the other reason some people don't have insurance is because
they're healthy and don't need medical treatment right now. These
people have money which would help to pay for _other_ people's medical
treatment. So they are the ones that "need" to be forced to buy
insurance.

Timothy Sutter wrote:

and having such an 'order' -imposed- will increase so-called 'chaos'

and make these people 'sick' and -force- them
in to the sickness industry.

Piet de Arcilla wrote:

Quote:

We should just declare that everyone is eligible for Medicare, and
abolish the insurance industry. Then increase payroll taxes as
necessary to pay for it.

this is a good one;

==
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/pl93-579/pl93-579.htm

"(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or
local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
individual's refusal to disclose his social security account
number.
==

so, somewhere along the line, you will have
to be granted health care, without providing
a social security number, unless, of course,
they overturn this bit.

but anyway,,.

insurance is just a pool of money,

i did this bit earlier;

==

if you're gunna do ths gubbment bit

and turn 'health ccare' into

an entitlement as opposed to a business,

abolish insurance outright

and when people need health care,

have them pay up the first 23%

and have the gubbment pay the rest.

where the gubbment is just tax revenues anyway.

to have people buy -insurance- from the gubbment is goofy.

just abolish insurance outright...

all insurance represents is a pool of monies

that providers use to pay off the administration

of health care when and as it takes place

with the hope and expectation that use

is outpaced by the pool itself

in that most people who put monies into

the pool never make use of it at all.

that's what will happen anyway

if you institute a gubbment option.

you will abolish "insurance" by default

and supercede that with a taxpayer

pool of funding monies, which is 'available'

to cityizens, and, as it turns out,

maybe even non-citizens inasmuch as we

are the benevolent kinder gentler people

who take care of strangers, even if we don't like them.

insurance is a pool of money

what you want is a pool of money

and there's really not much -room- for "profit"

because any "profit" that is taken out of the pool

is .... taken out of the pool

etc.

strictly speaking, "insurance" is already a "social contract"

where people pay into a large pool that is used

when needed by some people in the pool

"NO PROFIT" shudder shudder shudder...

a pool of monies is a pool of monies is a pool of monies

antidisirregardless of who is keeping an eye on such a pool of monies

and when and where it is to be allocated in -some- efficient manner

and who just wants to buy a flash car from the pool

and it's not like, you coouldn't allot "contracts"

to existing "insurance" concerns in much the

same way as the military allots

"contracts" to macdonald's douglass or whatever

but we -don't- want 50 dollar big macs

and thousand dollar toilet seats

we want 10 dollar X-rays

and good advice...

sure, the existing insurance companies

have an altered -focus-

away from private profits

and in to "public" efficiencoes

of pooled monies

and the initiating payment asked of people getting care

to help avoid plain old abuses

like you gotta need it

it's just that having -people- buy insurance policies

from teh government is instituting a middle man arrangement

which automatically is a money drain that serves no useful purpose

and only serves to drain monies -out- of the pool.

but, like i'm sayin'

insurance -is- a "pool"

and a "pool" -is- a "social contract"

it is not, in any manner,

one person, stashing monies with a bank

that will be used exclusively on ailments

encountered by that one person.

no, people put monies into a pool of shared resources

which are shared as need requires.

so, the "socialism" charge -can be- considered as unfounded

inasmuch as insurance itself -is- a "social contract" anyway.

and -now- 'we' want to save money

and some money can be saved

by abolishing 'insurance'

and converting the =pool= to something else.

to have people pay taxes -and- purchase insurance policies

is hitting themn coming and going

and instituting extraneous middle agencies

that do zero but drain the pool of resources.

so, if you absolutely feel the need to keep this 'health care'

fund slash pool of monies

"private" and not the proprietary ownership

of a =federal= bureaucracy

but a =private= bureaucracy

then, the focus of insurance 'granting' corporations

will have to shift away from profits

and over into base metal efficiencies

and now you need the same 'dedication'

in the insurance bizness as you'd

-like- to claim for the

medical profession itself

now start crafting the "oath"

"i promise not to do harm and rip people off for a flash car"

but if it's words that bother you,

insurance already -is- a "socialized" pool of monies.

but the thing is, some people simply pay

into their fears of being caught sick

and having their life savings

drained from their purses

and yet, never get really sick

and never make use of the policies.

and -that- is the plan of the insurance providers themselves,

that more money is placed in the pool

than ever are taken -out- of the pool.

so, -more- people pay into the pool and -don't- get

an exact return of what they placed in,

and so, people worrying about paying for people

that don't pay in as much as they put in

is -already- happening now.

more people -already- pay -in- to the
system than take out of the system,

-that- is how it turns a profit.

cuz, in reality

the insurance company

does -not- want to have to 'gamble' with the pool

in the markets to make their profits

and keep their concerns operating,

no, they maintain operating expense

by taking in more than they pay out.

and -that- involves a "social contract"

they -promise- to pay,

but they -expect- =not= to have to pay out

for each and every person who pays in.

they -expect- that -most- people will never recoup

every penny they pay in, and that some people will

use more than they pay in.

so, you are looking at abolishing insurance in its present form

for the emergence of the same sort of =pool= of monies

where the abolition involves

cutting -away- at the "middle men"

-but- introducing a new gubbment bureacracy to do -this-

is self defeating and is at crossed purposes

with the desired effect

where the desired effect

is more =pool= monies being devoted to -actual- care

and less to pay for flash cars and the like...

that's the -focus-

'they're' already 'wanting' to abolish

-existing- gubbment bureaucracies

so, to institute another is self defeating

but- then there's insurance

-if- you're going to absorb health care

into a gubbment bureaucracy,

you almost have to abolish insurance as it is now.

and not consider taxing people

-and- having them purchase insurance policies

for the self same [potentials for] care.

=something= gets abolished...

it's way too =ponderous=

to carry around all existing contingencies

-and- new institutions...

and so, if small businesses don't

have to consider insurance policies

for their employees, they get a benefit from that

etc. etc. etc.

somehow, to have both working, is self defeating.

so, it's like, the gubbment absorbs the existing -insurance- industry

just like the gubbment has absorbed the military contractors...

sure, they're "private" but they don't do anything much

-except- contract for unca sam.

and =people= don't purchase policies

a form of tax break in some sense

and some insentive to -not- get sick....

etc.

but what is not beneficial is;

"buy an insurance policy -and- pay more taxes"

it would be -nice- for -both- to be reduced.

===

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:51 am

Guest

another previous bit;

i mean, you get this idea that it's just some 'individual' that
performs a supplication with the giant corporate office and
asks for them to pay for medical bills that he can't pay
for his own daggone self.

not exactly.

the large corporate interest did not invent the monies.

it is a -pool- of monies from -many- 'individuals'

ok, so now, having said that, there would
be nothing standing in the way

of several hundred people, who felt
comfortable and friendly with each other

and had a modicum of trustworthiness amongst themselves

to 'pool' a collection and set it aside for the occasion
when one or ten of them may have some sort of illness
or accident that required medical attention.

and promise that the "treatment' for
an appendicitus would not be a bullet
in the brain.

"but the Don has mental problems, he needs to see a doctor"

and before 'we' decide to put a bullet
in the Don's brain for having mental problems,

either 'we' dig into the coffers of set
asides and hire him a head shrinker

or- 'we' use that money to send one of
the Don's associates to medical school

for training in how to diagnose and treat the Don's 'illness'

all the while, we give the associate a 9mm handgun to put
a bullet in teh Don's brain -if- such is the only
necessary and availabel 'treatment' for the Don's illness

and, sometimes, just showing the Don a gun aimed
at his forehead -may- be enough 'treatnment'

so as to cure his nausea.

see, but it's teh same sort of thing,

there is -nothing- standing in the way of
a group of people pooling resources

so as to take care of their own
private 'corporate' interests.

it just so happens that, the -larger- the group

the less expense incurred -per- individual.

and -this- is where the insurance companies come in.

they pool the resources of millions of people

and -try- to promise not to give you a bullet
in the brain for a head cold

not that you need to see a doctuh
for a head cold, anyway.

now, if you are dissatisfied with the manner in which

one large corporate entity is handling your case work,

find another -or-

you -could- try and gather up a large grouping of people

of your 'own' choosing

and begin a pooling of your 'own'

and bypass the existing concerns and
settle in on a concern of your own.

that's 'democratic'

and teh Don can have fewer attacks of nausea

worrying about how his associates are taking

care of their drug problems,

and who needs a bullet in the brain

like as, if one of -your- sons asked for a loaf of bread

would you -really- give him a poisonous scorpion instead?

it sounded better before i wrote it down...

but anyway, that's the general idea

shopkeepers have been pooling resoruces
for nigh on to ....lots of years,

and when the pool gets big enough,
they open up another mini-market

or another restaurant

or, another 'insurance' company...

you don't -have to- pool your money

with complete strangers

but you -can-

of course, 'individuality' is emphasized in this place,

-but- when you wander off to the insurance company

believe it or not, you have managed to

enter in to a 'collective' economy of sorts.

all we -don't- want

is a bullet in the brain for an appendectomy...

that would be 'overkill'

after all, the appendix still works

provided you feed it things it likes to digest.

believe it or not...

but anyway, the insurance company claims to be your 'friend'

but, if you had a group of 'friends' that you pooled money with,

just think for a moment about who might
instantly become not so much a 'friend'

if they got the cancer... and you=
wanted to ease your day

by giving him a scorpion

-insteead- of a trip to the doctuh's office

and that your 'friends' in teh insurance bizniss

may be a little less likely to put a bullet in your head
as -you- would be to put a bullet in ione of your
'firend's' heads.

of course, it could all be love and kindness

and people could be all nice to each other

and not even think of pushing the olde lady down the stairs,

but, this sometimes, remains to be seen...

and so, you can gripe and moan with

the faceless insurance agencies

but, would -you- do anything any different?

or would you push your 'friend's olde lady

down the steps when she got perpetually sick?

and then you'd have the poeleece at your door...

more drain on the economic situation...

but, the larger the concern,

like a corporate insurance company -or-

unca sam's insherance agancy

the more -faceless- the individual
may become or feel [he] has become

-but- is this a 'good thing'?

sure, if 100 families pooled resources

and had a health collection stash,

it may begon to result in huge arguments

over =who= was to get treated and for how much of the 'fund'

when great and wonderful +=ME=+ developes an ulcer

and small and insignificant {you} has pancreatic cancer

and 'we' all decide that {you} can go to blazes

and =+ME+= gets an all expence paid visit

to the Mayo clinic for the complete Spa treatement

whereas, the very largest concerns

has to consider more "objectively" who and how
people get treatments for what and who-hit-john

and still, ME=ME=ME ends up feelin' like a number...

i got feelin's to yuh know///

but we still don't want this insidious creeing feeling

that the =gubbment= is treating people like 'cattle'

and the moment you pipe up with a complaint,...

.... the DON's boys escort you to your eternal resting place...

and so, why bther with 'insurance' in the first place,

only they =force= you to 'insure' yourself through taxation

and it's all just a big machine and minor cogs and sprockets

get 'replaced' all the time and have more babies so

we can feed the machine.

Quote:

but we still don't want this insidious creeing feeling

that's "creeping"

an insidious and 'creeping' feeling of being a nut or a bolt

and not even a human being any more.

unless you're with the 'elite' and oftentimes incoompetent power
structure

who gets 'special treatment'

which -ain't- so 'democratic' any more...

so, we seem to end up in teh same predicament

no matter how large the 'pool' is or how small...

=unless= and until,

the 'grand awakening' takes place

andteh sky pie smacks you in the face

and God initiates a massive food fight

and everybody gets a little egg on their face

and 'we' all live happily ever after

9ncluding the Don who is drinking milk for a while

yeah yeah yeah.... it -could- happen...

then all God'll say is that you already -had-

apple pie and banana cream pie and coconut creap pie

and shaving cream pie so what did you bother =MU-US= for

while WE-US were out on the back nine haveing

a perfectly lovely day on a palm springs weekend?

not that God would be more than happy to lend a helping hand

but, the hand has already been lent...

why don't you pick up your silly mat and walk?

you'll be happier...

there isn't =full= cooperation

and without =full= cooperation

it ends up the same way

entanglements that tear away at the fabric

and the new patches rip apart the old garments

and...

you can't concern yourself with =who=

-you- can \trust\ to be in -your- pool

but -can- you trust your God

to see you through all the way

to the very beginning of the road

and if 'some' people who didn't pay full price

just happen to hitch a free ride

and actually -do- get accpeted in the 'end'

so be it

after all, the same can be said of us all...

"they weren't with 'us' from square one,

and you're giving them a full share in the thing"

that's right charlie...

"they' get a full share,

even if _they_ -hated- _you_

in the beginning..."

Mercy Triumphs over Justice...

news at 11

don't bother talking about what one -deserves-

cuz by and large, people may -deserve- a brick upside the head...

and instead, get daisies...

it may not be as -you- would have it,

but, you may just get it any way...

the daisies,

and not the brick...

backtracking a bit;

"but i don't have a thousand 'friends' to pool resources with"

so, it's back to the 'Church' only a 'criminal element'

has settled in to the "Church" and they're waiting right there

to do what they were already doing to you before you sought

refuge in a "Church" and that's letting you into 'their thing'

and taking the best care of themselves first and giving you

second class care and charging you a full fee.

and so, schismatics develop

and you 'leave' something that you may

never have been a part of anyway,

and get all these strange ideas

about how a "Church" did you wrong...

et cetera et cetera et cetera

and still; "i never knew you"

and there's other times and places
and people entering 'congregations'

with somewhat crooked ideas of their own

thinking they can be untruthful with the Holy Spirit

and who asked you in here anyway?

and you have peope running around saying;

"God, show me something"

and God staring right back at you goin'

"NO, -you- show -me- something"

does God believe in -you-?

that's the way the insurance companies
became insurance companies.

they knocked on people's 'door' and
convinced them to buy a policy like
a raffle ticket,

and, as it turns out, like a raffle

if you're "lucky" you sell more tickets

than the value of the prize, and

lo and behold, there's "extra" money beyond

the value of the 'prize'

if it's not 50 million destitute people

that don't have insurance, then, portions

of those 50 million people can sell themselves

into an insurance "raffle" and start what amounts

to several insurance companies of their very own.

it's really that simple.

that's how "they" 'did' it

when they went around drumming for bizness in their
little insurance scheme and sold policies like a raffle ticket

and said; "hold those tickets, and if you get
accidentally dismembered, we'll put food on your table"

but still, the Amish don't buy insurance policies...

at all

you don't need unca sam's permission to do this,

you need personal trust amongst a group of people.

===

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:18 am

Guest

the thing is;

"voluntary" as opposed to "state imposed"

when it comes to saying things like;

"well, 'everyone' -wants-
a social security number
and health insurance"

funny things happen when you start

-forcing- things on people.

cogs start flying all over the place...

boioioioinggggg

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:44 pm

Guest

Quote:

the thing is;

"voluntary" as opposed to "state imposed"
when it comes to saying things like;

"well, 'everyone' -wants-
a social security number
and health insurance"

funny things happen when you start
-forcing- things on people.
cogs start flying all over the place...

boioioioinggggg

but not only that, but you get this situation
that starts to look very much like... a pyramid scheme

because everyone who puts ten years of their
dollar into a health insurance policy/fund

-wants- to see a return of some sort on their 'investment'

and "well, i got peace of mind out of it"

ain't eneough and they want -services- for their dollar

and not "peace of mind"

and so, they want services and they start
going to the doctor more and more

and now, seeing as how -everyone- wants a
'return' on their health care dollar

the only resort is to bring in more 'investors'

to stand at the bottom of the pyramid

and pimp in funds, er,.. i mean pump in funds
so that 'everyone' who has already put money in,
can get sevices out

because very few people are buying health
insurance policies for "peace of mind"

and didn't we already go through this
when the so-called "generation Xers"

had it dawn on them that they
weren't gong to get social security

because it would be bankrupt
by the time they were 65

and now, they're all 35 and complacent and looking
for new blood to sit at the bottom of a new pyramid,

well, it's the same olde pyramid and lets
all have a good olde fashioned war...

or maybe they're over 40, i forget,

but anyway, "i ain't got no social security"

and now, i ain't got no health care neither...

only , i ain't part of no generation,

i'm just normal...

so quick, get more suckers, er, i mean subscribers

to pump monies into the pyramid

so's we all can get 'well'

like a shot in the arm ain't enough...

yeah, that'll work...

but seriously,

that is exactly how a pyramid scheme works,

only we got teh forceful arm of unca sam

=making= you get in on the ground floor...

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:59 pm

Guest

Quote:

that is exactly how a pyramid scheme works,

only we got teh forceful arm of unca sam

=making= you get in on the ground floor...

"who are you for?"

"i'm you FOR-ia"

"yeah yeah right,

now sit down and shut up

we'll get you some drugs in a minute"

"gee thanks, now i'm part of the system...again"

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:53 pm

Guest

Quote:

that is exactly how a pyramid scheme works,
only we got teh forceful arm of unca sam
=making= you get in on the ground floor...

Quote:

"who are you for?"

"i'm you FOR-ia"

"yeah yeah right,

now sit down and shut up

we'll get you some drugs in a minute"

"gee thanks, now i'm part of the system...again"

just remember, that bam-and-D they
charge you fitty bucks a pop for

cost only about fitty -cent- to produce,

if that much...

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:57 pm

Guest

Quote:

that is exactly how a pyramid scheme works,
only we got teh forceful arm of unca sam
=making= you get in on the ground floor...

"who are you for?"

"i'm you FOR-ia"

"yeah yeah right,

now sit down and shut up
we'll get you some drugs in a minute"
"gee thanks, now i'm part of the system...again"

just remember, that bam-and-D they
charge you fitty bucks a pop for

cost only about fitty -cent- to produce,

if that much...

not to worry,

i'm still looking for the upside...

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:59 pm

Guest

Quote:

oh, yeah, right,

if they make maryjuaner legal, outright,

people can grow it in their backyards

and cure all sorts of 'illnesses' with it...

Timothy Sutter...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:01 pm

Guest

Quote:

oh, yeah, right,

if they make maryjuaner legal, outright,

people can grow it in their backyards

and cure all sorts of 'illnesses' with it...

but that won't work, cuz it would be practically free

and nobody would be able to make any money onnit.

so, that sort of xes that off...

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:44 pm Religion Forum Index