[Final Authority]

Based on your 349, although that may be considered to be a valid point, you must declare what you would agree to as a measure as having many uninsured people seeking health care would entail.

If in fact the government did not expect people to have health insurance, would you also agree that government shouldn't pay anything to provide health care? And, if that is the case, would it also be agreeable to you to rescind any laws or case law that makes hospitals who are of a certain tax status that requires them to provide health care treatment without regard of payment? And, if that is the case, would you be agreeable to allowing the dead and dying to be just set aside and dragged off to some pit as they decompose?

Would you in essence, be agreeable to having a health care system only for those who can pay and none, I mean none, for those who either can't pay or who have not made the effort to buy insurance?

If the later is the case, then say so, please, as I and others need to know exactly the dynamics of the argument.

Since the government is not anything other than us, who make up the government and pay the bills, the government is only a conduit for the distribution of the charity that the voters agree on. It has become customary in this culture that we do not allow people to die in the streets because of a lack of health care and treatment. This plan just makes those who can pay, do, and identifies those who can't and provides a minimal level of insurance to them.

To not support this is to invite a socialist system of national health care. The folks in Massachusetts are working to hold off that apparent eventuality.

[Jim Noble]

And, if that is the case, would you be agreeable to allowing the dead and dying to be just set aside and dragged off to some pit as they decompose?

Presumably their families would still want to have funerals...

[Jim Noble]

And, if that is the case, would it also be agreeable to you to rescind any laws or case law that makes hospitals who are of a certain tax status that requires them to provide health care treatment without regard of payment?

Yes, repealing EMTALA is an essential step if nationalization is to be avoided.

[Jim Noble]

Would you in essence, be agreeable to having a health care system only for those who can pay and none, I mean none, for those who either can't pay or who have not made the effort to buy insurance?

The system that existed prior to 1965 would be just fine.

There were clinics and hospitals for those who couldn't pay - even for those who could, but had other plans for their money.

The pay hospitals were (mostly) better - but that's natural, that's the way we allocate housing, food, transportation, and everything else.