eclectic git

Single Payer

Private insurers will lose market control and enormous profits, so they deploy lies to thwart a public plan, especially a non profit government single payer plan. They argue that it leads to socialism.

Socialism, the people own, through the instrument of government, ALL businesses and services. No private fire, sanitation, security, or healthcare in socialism. No private services or businesses in socialism.

Services are not socialist, capitalist, monarchal, or any ideology of government. Services are not ideological even when the government is the single payer.

Law enforcement in our capitalist economy is a single payer service, yet we do not forbid private detective and security firms. Sanitation another service in which government is the single payer, but we have private sanitation firms. So with fire, the government is the single payer.

Is the single payer police service socialist? Fire? Sanitation?

If single payer government run healthcare is socialist, then police, sanitation, and fire government run services are also socialist.

Too many for profit private insurers divert money from payment of claims, research, and preventive care to pay their investors dividends, for ads, high salaries for executives, and lobbyists to influence congress folk to pass laws favorable for them. Some private insurers reject or delay payment of claims to increase their profits. Many do not cover prior medical conditions.

A government run non profit single payer plan will use most  of its income for research, preventive care, and claims. It will cover prior conditions. These are the dividends paid to the American public.

I have Medicare, a government run single payer plan, and a Medicare Supplement plan, a private business run plan that enhances the Medicare. Public and private coexist and complement.

I am a libertarian.

First, I am radically opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. It is a moral stand. I would not date or marry a woman who would have an abortion.

There is only one relevant fact in the abortion debate: each woman owns her body.

My morality should not be enacted into law or even be in the discussion of public policy. Folk have freedom of speech so I know that it will be discussed publicly. I know that some folk will try to impose their morality on others.

The economic, political, and philosophical basis of our republic is that each person owns self; therefore no one, no group, and no state can enslave the person, the individual. The state cannot condone slavery, therefore it cannot force her to carry to birth another human life. The moral argument is irrelevant in our society. It may be relevant in discussions of morality, but not our civil public sphere. It is unconstitutional now for the state to outright outlaw abortion.

According to our founding principles it would contradict them to amend the constitution to outlaw abortion. To amend the Constitution to allow the state to outlaw abortion would reduce women to slavery. That should be resisted by all necessary force, even force of arms.

I keep my flintlock loaded by the door when I hear folk speak of the enslavement of any individual or group.

The argument that a government run single payer health care system introduces socialism is false; it is designed to evoke negative, un thoughtful responses from American citizens.

A government run single payer system is not socialist.

Single services are ideologically neutral.

Socialism ideally is the people through the instrument of the state owning all the means of production. I am a libertarian, enough said.

Law enforcement and protection is a service that the government runs and government is the single payer. That does not prevent private for profit companies from doing business. There are private detective firms and security firms to fill the niche that public law enforcement cannot. It is the same for sanitation; it is the same for fire to a lesser extent.

Health care is another necessary service that a society cannot leave to private business exclusively. A society needs to guarantee that all individuals have food, clothing, shelter, and health care to be able to work. The first three are mentioned as necessary in the right wing classic, The Road To Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974), as necessary in a successful capitalist society. I do not believe that my addition of health care moves beyond the idea of what is needed for an individual to be able to work.

I have Medicare and a Medicare supplement; the latter I buy from a private business. The Medicare supplement plan from a private for profit company fortifies and enhances my Medicare. 

The government single payer plan will not cover all; there is a niche for private companies to provide a single payer supplement.

What is does is break the monopoly that business has on health care. What is does is remove the for profit motive as the only model.

The profit model encourages company bureaucrats to deny legitimate claims and reject people with prior illnesses to increase profits. They spend monies to lobby congress best spent in research and health services.

The people who tell you that a service is socialist are liars; if not liars they have been duped too by people who put profit above your health. If a single payer health care service is socialist, then your local police force, fire department, nationally the F.B.I., Secret Service, and Customs and Border Protection are socialist.

Socialism is all services, all businesses run by the state for the people. I don't want that. I would oppose that with all my will and strength.

I want the basic health care run without the profit motive, patient centric, and a single payer which simplifies and removes the bureaucratic mess we have now. Private business can compete among themselves to offer the best enhancements in their supplements.

Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan By ROBERT B. REICH

On XP Pro I run Online Armor Premium, NOD32, and Sandboxie. Sandboxie has a setting to improve its cooperation with Online Armor; Online Armor has a setting that improves its work with NOD32. NOD32 is designed to work with other security programs. With these three programs you do not need any other, except your human brain, and some on demand scanners and rootkit diagnostic programs if you are as paranoid as I am. The human brain can protect from social engineering or make the system weaker. 
If you have Online Armor and Sandboxie, Sandboxie's default has the Online Armor already checked.  If you have OA with antivirus its even simpler I suppose.
I don't know the reason that Ronen Tzur , creator of Sandboxie, provided a process to cooperate with Online Armor; perhaps Sandboxie will detect and cooperate with other firewalls too. I will ask him through his forum.
I note that Ronen Tzur, Tallemu, and Eset are not the big boys.  I believe that their products show that there is genius, technical expertise, and artistry in their creation.  Excuse me, I tend to develop crushes on companies that make good programs.  I apologize.

If we believe, as the Constitution says, that each individual deserves equal protection of the laws, then marriage between any two individuals is constitutional. Nay, I say, I go further. I say any marriage of any number of individuals is protected. Government has no power to say that multiple marriages are not protected, so if a man can persuade several women to marry him it is protected. The same for woman who wishes to marry several men. The same a man who wishes to marry one or many other men or a woman who wishes to marry several women. I add to this list men or women who wish to marry a person of the same or opposite sex without any romantic or sexual intent. Why? There are legal protections and privileges invested in marriage recognized by the state. Therein lies the problem with marriage recognized by the state.

The solution I advocate is to pry loose the association of marriage and the state. Civil unions, invested with the contractual elements, without the religious, is the true province of the state. Civil union is a contract and should have invested in it all the rights, privileges, and the proper adjudication that all contracts are subjective to in the courts.

Citizens would not have to apply for a civil union; it would be a contract drawn up by their lawyers and registered.

Religious elements of marriage belong to the varied religious denominations and sects. One may have a male friend, if a man, who we wish to have the legal right to inheritance rights, decision rights in cases of medical emergencies, or the various other legal rights a chosen relative may have. It does not and should not have in it necessarily a romantic or sexual content. It is simply a contract between two or more consenting adults.

If we wish also to marry and can find a religious group to accept our beliefs of the number and gender of our bond, that is a separate consideration. Catholics, for example, would have to satisfy Catholic doctrine; whereas X religious denomination may accept same sex marriage or multiple marriage. It is not the concern of government their marriage, only the legal aspects constitute the concern of government.

Some individuals may wish to have a marriage without a civil union, thereby have a union with all the religious elements without the legal. Their legal rights and obligations remain those of individuals, yet have the loving and religious rights and obligations of their religious denomination.

We should not confuse and mix the legal and religious.

Dear First Lady Michele Obama:

I include the letter that I wrote and shall mail tomorrow to Mesdames Bonnie McCarvel, executive director of the Mid-America CropLife Association, and Janet Braun, CropLife Ambassador coordinator.
I have to acknowledge that you are their muse; I recognize that there is no better muse than you, dear Lady.

The letter:

Mesdames Bonnie McCarvel and Janet Braun:

I read your letter to First Lady Michele Obama and laughed so hard that I succumbed to an attack of the hiccups. It is obvious that you are satirists on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. I commend Mr. Stewart for such superb satirists. He recognizes and hires talented comedians. I admire your pointed barbs aimed at the chemical industry; they are true to the mark. I laugh every time that I read the letter. You two are assured of a successful career in comedy.

When a cable network signs you for a comedy special
and, I hope, a comedy series, please notify me. I will watch it dutifully and recommend it to my kin, kith, and friends.

Affably,

Thomas Elias Weatherly