It's where an entity pays for medical expenses rather than many entities paying for it. I'm for one payer and coverage for all. I don't care how rich or poor anyone is. I'm willing, and always have been, to work contributing to providing equally good healthcare for everyone.
The greedy, on the other hand, want to be able to make a profit off people's health problems; and those greedy ones do not want single-payer in the form of the US government because the people through that government would not be willing to grossly enrich those greedy ones.
It's called socialized medicine: socialism versus capitalism.
I'm for socialism, not capitalism. However, I'm for all people having an equal say and for all people being fully informed, not Leninism or Stalinism, etc. I'm also not a Marxist but a Christian.
Most of the rich capitalists are not for all people having an equal say and being fully informed. That's the problem. They have set things up, usually beginning at the points of many guns bought and paid for via more of the same basic gangsterism, so they control the flow of information and many other things they should not.
I am for all of those greedy ones seeing the light, converting, and volunteering (not being coerced but convicted by their hearts -- developing working consciences) to give and share all in a fully giving-and-sharing economic system, fully democratized, fully informed -- no allowing mammon to buy more say, more power, more control for the few over the many. There's an entire monetary-reform plan behind all of this too in the form of debt-free money (a la United States Notes) and then no money needed at all.
It's very much good versus evil.
The capitalists complain about socialists taking from them, but capitalist are right now taking from the whole public in places such as Greece (if the Greeks allow the privatizers to take over, which was the whole point certain extremely rich ones crashed the system -- not all of the superrich agree with doing that).
France has single-payer and universal coverage. It's healthcare system has been rated #1 in the world, far above the US in terms of good outcomes versus expenditures. The laissez-faire capitalists (usually crony capitalists in disguise), are trying to ruin France's healthcare and other social-welfare state systems because those capitalists are greedy and put themselves above everyone else.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)