Common Sense Solution to Health Care Issue

The following is based in an understanding of natural rights and natural law as Locke explained them and our founders understood them, and assuming they are protected by a government formed through the social contract and tasked with the sole responsibility of protecting the individual rights and liberties of every individual equally by insuring the fair and impartial application of the rule of law.


How to fix our “healthcare problem:”

1 — Throw out ALL federal health care laws – ALL of them.

2 — End – TOTALLY END public payment for private care.  In a free society, no one is or should be held responsible for the welfare of another.  This is the role of the individual, their family and – as a last resort – charity – true charity.  Maybe, if we did this, there would be fewer hangnails in the ER and much less animosity toward the Church.

3 — END – TOTALLY END employer-based health care insurance.  This is merely a means of separating the individual from personal responsibility, as well as a path to facilitate wealth redistribution from the employer to the employee.  It has no place in a free and self-governing society as it runs counter to the natural right to contract by placing 3rd and 4th parties into the contract who have no obligation to the primary parties who must provide and receive the benefits of the contract.

4 — Address the very real issue of tort reform: put a simple “Loser pays ALL fees” law in place and prohibit contingency fees.  The lawyer has an hourly rate, make him abide by hourly wages like the rest of the world.  Commission sales destroys the integrity of the justice system which, under natural law, should be confined to restitution for actual damages plus no more than 1/5 in penalties.  A return to natural law would also eliminate the excessive “pain and suffering” claims as well.  If one cannot show a loss, then no loss was incurred and no one should be forced to pay for something they did not actually do.

5 — Allow insurance companies to restructure their policies as they see fit.  Routine health care or “maintenance” care is NOT something one needs “insurance” against.  One needs insurance for the things that CAT plans normally cover.  The rest should rightfully be paid OOP by the individual.  Anything else destroys the fundamental nature of insurance.

6 — CAT plans can cover the rest.  Allow CAT plans to be bought and sold across States lines.  This is another restraint on natural rights and natural law as it serves no purpose but to restrict the market and drive up health care insurance costs.

7 — Finally, make it easier for someone to sue their insurance company.  If a company is unwilling to fulfill the terms of its policy, the customer should be allowed to sue in short order for the maximum amount entitled under those terms, plus the 1/5 penalty and attorney’s fees.  Furthermore, if we also address the issue of corporations and how they are used to shield their owners, if a customer has to sue his/her insurance company and that suit meets the requirements of a class action suit, the owners of that corporation may well face the possibility of personal financial loss and even jail time – as they should.


Problem solved, and all within the confines of the natural rights, natural law and free market.

38 thoughts on “Common Sense Solution to Health Care Issue

  1. Black – this is pitched for the sake of debate & fine tuning I am to assume?

    There are immediate problems with 1 & 7.

    There are federal healthcare laws that protect the patient’s rights (i.e., H.I.P.P.A. – protects a patient’s right to privacy). Tossing those laws out, place your constitutional right to privacy at risk. Additionally item 7 would be unenforceable should number 1 exist, as you would need a Federal Healthcare Law to address the right to litigate. One could argue that this could be addressed at the state level … until you sustain an injury out of state while on vacation, and suffer a malpractice issue while being treated in that state.

    • the Federal govt. has no authority in this area, so, unless it is amended, 1 is a necessity. As for the issue of HIPPA, that should be something the health care provider is bound to by contract already. And, even if it isn’t, it is a simple thing to demand that it be part of any CAT plan you purchase and any business you have with your doctor. Either way, this is something that belongs under the authority of the States.

      7 should already be in effect, and likely would be – had corporations not purchased federal protections through legislation. There is NO reason a person should be forced to wait years to litigate a case. Anything that complicated is likely another count that should be added to the complaint. As for interstate disputes, they would then be handled under the Constitutional mandate for the fed to moderate between States.

      How’d I do? 🙂

      • Getting better. You are more open to suggestion than the current interloper in the white house.

        Make me “George Washington” for a day, I’ll put you and Augger to work.

        • Nothing to any of this. If you understand the Declaration of Independence and faithfully apply the Constitution to protect the ideals and principles contained in it, there’s really nothing difficult about any of our problems. It is when you start looking to get around them for the purposes of personal gain (power and/or money) and to control others that you make things complicated. That’s when the system breaks down: because you are no longer playing by the rules.

  2. Agreed with everything except your Attorney fees limitations. There you are starting to sound like a Republican with their unjust Tort reform, Limiting damages. Freedom REQUIRES responsibility. RESPONSIBILITY requires ACCOUNTABILITY. Damages MUST include ACTUAL and PUNITIVE, otherwise Payors have no incentive to pay without a lawsuit. The tortfeasors must be afraid of an angry jury who will PUNISH them for wrongdoing. Must modify your limitations on actual and punitive damages. Attorneys take a risk when they take cases on for clients who have no money. Otherwise the attorneys will not take the cases, if there is no upside to the risk of losing. And clients without money to pay their attorney, will have no place to go for redress.

    • Says the lawyer. Sorry, tex, I disagree, and I disagree on philosophical grounds – not political tinkering/partisanship.

      Justice is not a commission-based process, nor should it be. Imagine if the doctor got paid on commission: how would that work out? What if your police wanted to be paid on commission, or the military?

      Lawyers have an hourly rate…until they see a commissioned based case come through the door. then they sue for damages FAR in excess of what is actually incurred and rightfully due to the victim – just to increase their fees. This is an injustice to the justice system, which then makes it an injustice to the people, as well.

      As for the defendant needing to be afraid: JAIL TIME SHOULD BE ALLOWED! As well as personal financial loss. The way the system works now, you get a $1 billion award, the corporation pays it and the owners say “oh, well.” Furthermore, allowing a jury to render an emotionally based verdict that assesses damages beyond what were actually incurred is just more injustice – only this time in the opposite direction.

      Finally, attorneys ‘gambling’ is a large part of the reason we are where we are, and for the trash cases clogging our courts. I’ll stick with my “loser pays, lawyers get hourly rates” suggestion.

        • You just argued my point about the necessity of a Federal law. Now do not get me wrong, I would nothing more than keeping the Feds (especially King Oblamer, Queen Pelosi, Court Jester Carney, and Scapegoat Lew) out of the relationship between the patient, and their physician, but by the very nature of “writing a law” that has implications across state borders means Federal oversight.

          • Does it? I thought, if I got ALL the federal laws out of this, then the States would be left to enforce civil law, of which privacy should be a rightful part, the problem you address would be dealt with WITHOUT the need for federal law.

            What am I missing??? :-/

            • Basically returns us to the type of place we were at before the Civil War B. States are like finger prints, and no two are alike. Though Democrats like to tell us the war was all about slavery, it was not. There was unfair trading practices amongst the states causing an economic divide that was unfortunately only resolved by war.

              The idea you propose is awesome for the state of Florida as long as no leaves Florida. Take the famous case in Tampa where the surgeon amputated the wrong leg (nevermind that the leg he amputated was scheduled to be amputated the next day). In Florida there were laws that protected him against malpractice, so he rightfully sues, and wins. What would happen if he were in New York visiting his tired old granny, and the same mistake was there and they had no provisions for malpractice? No patient rights to proper care at all?

              We may all like it or not, but patients do have rights, and those rights … like our those granted by the Constitution need protection as well.

              • You are already walking down that slippery slope to socialized medicine. Since when is the govt. the safest repository of your rights? The ONLY thing govt. can or should do is insure that ALL laws adhere to natural law, and that those laws are fairly and equally applied to everyone. Natural law already provides for the protection of privacy, and for suing someone for removing the wrong limb (though, in the case you cited, such a suit should be considered in light of what you say was going to happen, anyway).

                Now, as for the issues of differing laws in differing States: do you support the Constitution as a federation or would you rather a national govt. Serious question because, answer one way, and the solution is “tough! No one gets to tell Canada how it has to treat you if you get sick there, why should Washington tell the States?” Chose the other and you and I stand in opposition as you oppose the Constitution and State sovereignty.

                We either maintain the integrity of the system, or we accept the inevitability of the rule of men. In that case, you and I should shut up: Obama and the left have won and we should accept it. I prefer to do what I can to maintain the system as it was designed – especially since it was designed to conform with natural law, and natural law ALWAYS reasserts itself.

                • B – I hate to dumb this thing down to a childish level, but I think we are going to have to go through some of this to get on the same page.

                  Amendment I – 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.

                  How hard do you think it would be for me as a healthcare provider to deny you one of those liberties? Let’s take freedom of speech. Your the patient in the hospital and you bitch at me about something, so in response, I sedate you with morphine. Perfectly legal in my state, but not yours. Who protects you then?

                  Natural law is a wonderful thing, but there is no provision for it in the US Bill of Rights. It is in my mind perfectly fine for the Federal Government to follow, and protect the Bill of Rights. And while I would like to think of myself as Federalist, I also understand that without the US Constitution, and the Federal Government that supports/defends it, there is no United States of America. There would be 50 little countries, and then we have a whole new ball game, and your position becomes perfectly fine in my mind.

                  But I tell you, as a collection of states, we are together much stronger than we ever would have been separate.

                • No, I understand the need to go here. So…

                  First, any contract which demands you set aside your inalienable rights in order to receive a service is contrary to natural law and thus, IF we are abiding by that natural law, it is null and void. That would be an easy case to win and swift justice could and should be available.

                  However, I object to your example. Today, we think the 1st Amendment protects ALL speech: it does not! It was never meant to protect anything that violates natural law, it was specifically meant to protect the natural right to express one’s conscience. This is most often associated with political speech, not abuse, slander, liable, or any other harmful speech. In fact, for the first 30-40 years of this nation, one could be and people were fined and imprisoned for slandering or blaspheming the Lord. So, hopefully you will understand my objection.

                  Now, as for the idea that there is no provision for natural law in the Bill of rights: with respect, Augger, this is demonstrably wrong. The Bill of rights IS natural law in that it was intended to protect the ideals and principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

                  As for the idea that we should be a national govt., then you and I stand in opposition to each other. You have sided with Lincoln, and he is undoubtedly one of the worst presidents this nation ever had. He destroyed the Constitution; Obama just put the last shovel of dirt on it. As ratified, the Constitution was a govt. of 13 individual nations and, had this NOT been so, the Constitution would have NEVER been ratified.

                  Finally, I understand people like to think “philosophy is nice, but we live in the real world.” But, frankly, that is a naïve cliché that serves only to excuse duty and responsibility. Philosophy is the compass that guides us individually, as a community and even a society/nation. Without it, we get 300 million ideas of what is right/wrong. In that case, you stand directly in the line of fire of both Utah and myself, as you are saying there is no objective reality. NO NATION can survive if the people believe such nonsense. You MUST have an ideal to shoot for and by which to measure success. In truth, the majority of my posts deal with the fact that this nation is in the process of abandoning the founders’ philosophy in favor of that of Hobbes/Hegel/Marx. If this is not reversed, then the future of man for the foreseeable future is slavery and oppression the likes of which man has never seen.

                  I mean no offense or insult. I just ask you to consider my argument before dismissing it. I believe I am safely within the founding ideals and principles of this nation and I am merely trying to convince others to join me.

                • When I took my Oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution and State of Texas Constitution, I meant it as well, and I’m still under Oath also.
                  I also took an oath to “seek Justice”, which most lawyers never take, and/or never understand….
                  And the same holds true for me and that oath.

                  • Protecting the Constitution and seeking justice have no necessary connection to the legal profession (technically, they are the duty of all free and self-governing people, aren’t they?) 😉

                • Oh yeah, by the way, you must be a lawyer in spirit, With that sneaky way of getting me to “out” myself. : )

                • Protecting and Supporting your fellow man(woman). Jewish Principles, No Christian Principles, No Jewish Principles, No Christian Principles…….. No WAIT !

                  AMERICAN principles, as espoused in the Spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

                  YES ! The duty of ALL Americans to preserve, protect, and UPHOLD.

  3. Yeah, the surgeon was ultimately exonerated in the case if my memory serves me correctly, but the backlash of regulations surrounding that incident are still rippling to this day.

  4. Common sense? Who’s common sense? It seems that even the few of you that have commented so far can’t agree. This is why things are where they are. So many different opinons and everyone thinking that they are right. It’s not as simple as you want to make it, black. I wish it was.
    Btw, before you throw away all the insurance and make everyone self-pay, can you fix the job situation so we can afford to pay for our healthcare? Thanks.

    • My idea is to drive us back toward individual responsibility. I should not be held responsible for taking care of you. Nor should anyone else. Nor should anyone be held responsible for finding you a job. But, since you mentioned it, by what magic do you expect ANYONE to make jobs for people while – at the same time – they are being told they have to pay more in wages than they can make, and then cover health care benefits on top of that? I mean, if people think businesses are that rich, why don’t they start their own business and get rich, too?

      The fact that so many have different ideas of how best to fix things is called liberty. HOWEVER, the moment the govt. is used to take from one citizen and give to another, liberty ends.

      I find it funny that so many who see no problem with this as long as it is based on a person’s bank account balance are also the first to berate THE SAME PRACTICE when it is conducted based on skin color. That’s what happens when people rationalize what they want rather than adhere to principles based on what is morally right/wrong.

  5. I’m not about to tell you or anyone else how to fix the nation’s problems. I was only pointing out the difficulty in doing so because there are so many different opinons on how to do it.

  6. Joe – I still have your response both here, and in email. I haven’t forgotten, just coming in after a 14 hour day, and another long one to follow tomorrow.

    I am interested in further our discussion concerning philosophy, federalism, and the Constitution, but it is going to have a wait just a bit. 😦

      • I am still messing around, but the whole reach to find the plurality between federalism, philosophy, speculation on the founding fathers, and the birth of the Constitution is going to require a much higher level of thought that I can muster at the moment if we really are going to explore it. And we need to explore it before we honestly head back to the discussion on what to do with the healthcare “crisis” as I now describe it.

        • Agreed, though I would assert that – when it comes to what the founders thought – that is actually more knowable than the though of our current leaders – who remain above ground 😉

          • They are pretty much all whack up there. But that’s a different discussion.

            One block at a time. 🙂

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.