The Alliance For Natural Health
  • Jeanne Smith

    It would also be wonderful to have a health care system that would allow consumers to choose alternative health practices as well. More and more people utilize alternative medicine and should be allowed to have these medical costs covered by insurance.

    • Krystina Bair

      Exactly!!! Ever since even just the CONCEPT of the ACA began I have been saying this. If we are going to be FORCED to put money toward healthcare, we should just be able to contribute to something like an HSA so we can spend it on whatever we want…including supplements.

    • patgo

      Why should I be forced to pay for other people to poison themselves with pharmaceuticals while I have to pay out of pocket for natural remedies? And why is it standard of care to force more than a dozen poisonous pharmaceuticals down the throat of a person who just had a major medical event and major surgery, behind the backs and against the will of him and his wife?

      • steven jacobs

        when enough of US start to demand that OUR needs be addressed you will begin o see change. Until then, small minorities will be marginalized and ignored

        • d-dectiri

          The vaxxing agenda is a great place to start. It’s every day and every place and hot on their radar now because of the movement… Vaxxing for jobs is rampant, ignoring the ineffectiveness on top of the lack of safety or even testing… plus approvals based on just the patent office lawyers’ signature on drug company glorified application data… horrific potential for children right down to fetuses… ttyl

          • steven jacobs

            just get rid of the protection from lawsuits that congress gave to the vaccine makers-things will straighten out quickly.
            I was excited when President Trump appointed bob kennedy JR. to oversee the vaccine programs-but so far not a peep from him-very disappointing

          • d-dectiri

            I tried to update you on what RFK Jr was doing but used links to his webpages and events and the ‘moderator’ has silenced that posting. So here goes again.

            RFK, Jr has been making some uproar with his interview agendas on major media. Actually got past the censors.

            Plus he put $100,000 of his own money on the table to challenge the media ‘journalists’ who routinely publish FDA lies about ‘safe and effective’ with the offer, announced at a major Press Club event that the money was for ANYONE who could show the public and him a peer reviewed study establishing ‘safety’ for the then current vaxes.. No takers, just stonewalling.

            His major webpage are at WorldMercuryProject dotorg where he has publicized in his blogging the research papers that demolish ‘safe and effective’. For example, the JacksonState Univ study of vaccinated children vs unvaccinated (mostly homeschoolers) that showed the vaxed kids were significantly more sickly, not just the Autism, tho that was there as well…

            That study had an even bigger bombshell, in that it showed that effectiveness was nearly pure myth since — of the almost 20 vaxes they stab kids with — ONLY TWO showed any improvement in avoiding acquiring the disease itself….

            More recently he had the study that compared vax safety before the politicians gave the vax mfrs immunity to the plethora of vaxes after delitigation was achieved. Definite crimes were afoot.

            But even more stunning was the sensible comparison of the hazards of extreme adverse reactions to the severe complications of the diseases supposedly protected from… BOOM, the vaxes were THREE TIMES WORSE…

            Meanwhile consumer advocate Tim Bolen manages team-blog of anti-vax experts among whom is Kent Heckenlively, author of “Innoculated”, and others who are examining progress ideas. Among those agendas is one that shows some power. Heckenlively posted a whitehouse petition (just closed yesterday) to drum up discussion of the concept of a FIVE YEAR MORATORIUM ON VAXXING UNTIL THE PROPER SAFETY TESTING IS DONE. He also included the vitally needed ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs, just like cigarettes.

            The next step in that path is now up at the CDC or FDA website to demand that THEY recognize their crimes and implement the lawfully required moratorium. It’s a 16page legal document that proves that the CDC/FDA are violating their mandates and must submit to the rule of law. Impressive work, just posted. See for yourself… at regulations dotgov slash docket? with the indescribable file id of D=FDA-2017-P-4500

            Hope this gets through… it’s justified…

          • steven jacobs

            Thank you for all this information-I spend a lot of time on vaccine sites but a lot of your info is new to me. I will check it out. Thanks again and here’s hoping that we will get a forum for our voices and end the FORCED vaccination/damaging of our children.

          • patgo

            My parents made me get flu shots. I got several strep throats a year. Went off to college, refused to get flu shot, haven’t had flu, strep throat, or a shot since. That was 55 years ago.

        • Headhunter

          True!!!!

          • d-dectiri

            With Heckenlively’s challenge (he’s also a lawyer, as are some of the others organizing the challenge) to the authorities in DC (and Georgia, etc), the challenge must be open for PUBLIC COMMENT for a lengthy period (90 days maybe) and they then must respond.

            If they fail to implement the law mandated response to such evidence then that empowers Trump to crush them and clear that swamp with pink slips….

            Bolen’s blogging is at BolenReport dot com and more action by supporters of true healthcare is coming with detailed feedback from Heckenlively and company. ttyl, I just was out there to test the commenting process, not bad, all done and ready to launch friends and family. see ya

      • Marvin Zinn

        It is all done for pharmaceutical profits. Government officals who force that on us probably own drug company stocks.

        • patgo

          You’re tellin’ me! We experienced the brunt of this although we didn’t want it and tried to stop it. They gave 14 medications to the patient behind our backs after he had a major medical event and serious surgery and was already weak. They almost killed him. The idea government officials own drug company stocks doesn’t surprise me at all, and I know somehow they are beholden to these companies. The whole thing stinks. More swamp to clean up. Hope they can.

          • d-dectiri

            Us too, and the scene in rural hospitals is horrific as they consider rural people to be so ignorant of medical and health practices as to train their staffs to think of rurals as derelicts, drunks and gun-toting fools.. Wave medical research in their faces and flag the drugs with inappropriate contraindications to your patient and they are outraged.. so you see, there’s huge population of hospital staff that needs replacing

          • patgo

            They thought we were homeless, even though they KNEW I found the victim in OUR DRIVEWAY. Since when does a homeless person have a driveway? And the most recent issue: toxic “inert” ingredients in medication. Did you know that sodium lauryl sulfate is used in over 7000 medical products, and it is a SKIN IRRITANT? Or how about polyethylene glycol, which can be adulterated with two substances, one of which is 8 on the toxic scale at Skin Deep Database, and the other a 10, the HIGHEST risk, and both are carcinogenic? Or how about propylene glycol, common antifreeze? I use that to kill packrats. Why do they put it in medications? Or how about formaldehyde, which has a toxic level of 10? Yes, they put that in medications, including immunizations…along with MSG, mercury, and tissue derived from human unborn babies. Many of these substances have synonyms that don’t mean anything to the public, so they use them to conceal that they are selling us toxins. Was trying to think of one for formaldehyde, and I can’t think of it. I’ll check tomorrow.

        • Headhunter

          Exactly!!!!

      • Headhunter

        “‘AMEN” FOR THE BIG PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANYS AND THE GOVERNMENT IT ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS/MONEY

    • Clifford

      INCLUDING therapeutic cannabis, recommended by a doctor.

      • patgo

        Cannabis is not safe, and there are more effective natural alternatives. You can use it if you want. I’m not interested. I hope nobody ever tries to force it on us.

        • Headhunter

          I would rather take my changes using cannabis than those prescription drugs with all of those side effects. Mary Jane for me Marijuana because it is natural.

          • patgo

            So is locoweed. Natural. Your point? Not all natural things are safe. I have done extensive research and had personal experiences, including raising a child who was damaged in utero by marijuana. He will never be normal. And it has cost him dearly.

          • Mike G

            Personal experience being used as a marker for potential problems does not constitute proof of anything. Finding cannabis in someones system who was involved in a fatal accident tells you nothing about whether they were under the influence or not, since cannabis remains in the system for weeks. The statistics done for Colorado simply report when it was found in the system of people involved in such accidents, and don’t tell you if they also had high blood alcohol levels, they don’t tell you if they had prescription drugs in their system or illegal drugs (like cocaine, heroin, etc.). There are no studies showing issues with cannabis use during pregnancy, only anecdotal evidence. Obviously, more research is required, but of course federal classification of cannabis as a class 1 narcotic makes doing the kind of studies necessary extremely difficult, if not out right impossible (particularly human studies, which without the federal laws would be easy to do since many people use cannabis, undoubtedly far more than are willing to admit it in surveys about usage). My point is, you can’t make sweeping generalizations based on personal experience only. There are undoubtedly problems with cannabis use for some people, however you can’t generalize this to suggest that it is just outright bad for everyone when the evidence points in the other direction. It should also be noted that CBD oil, made from cannabis, contains only trace amounts of THC and has never been shown to have any negative effects on people who use it. On the contrary, it has shown to be something of a “miracle drug” without zero side effects (again, virtually no THC, so none of the issues involved with “getting high” from smoking the flowers of the plant). You can certainly debate the recreation usage, but medically it has already been show to be incredibly beneficial for a wide variety of ailments.

          • patgo

            Excuse me. I have done extensive research. I said so. And tell that to our son who was damaged in utero. It is true they cannot study a class 1 narcotic. I don’t know how they would do double blind studies on that, quite honestly. It would be unethical to give it to a person who doesn’t know if he got it or not. As for the report from Colorado, not so fast. It sure looks like you’ve been smoking too much.

            I haven’t done any research on CBD oil, but it IS an extract, and I am leery of extracts, because they do not include protective factors from a plant, and they have become drugs. Also keep in mind that the consequences of a new drug use aren’t known until thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people have been harmed.

            And for those of you who can still think straight, I had a friend who used marijuana from intractable pain for botched shoulder surgery. I had no problem with that. But she wrote to me and told me, after some years, that her brain had been fried. She became a virtual zombie and I lost track of her. Please keep in mind the NORML regards medicinal marijuana as the camel’s nose in the tent. It is a stepping stone to total legalization. If that ever happens, I will be confined to my home, because I get a splltting headache from the tiniest whiff of marijuana smoke. Those of you who want to be “generous” and let anyone smoke, keep in mind that you are trashing our society, and not all of us are interested in living a trashed society.

            Oh, one more thing for people who can still think. How does advocating marijuana legalization help us persuade people we should be allowed to have alternative care? Seems to me it would be one of the reasons people would refuse to consider it. I would certainly refuse, based on THAT argument. And by the way, they tried to pass a referendum here that would have forced ME to pay for OTHER PEOPLE’S marijuana. Supposedly freedom of choice? I don’t THINK so. Mine would be trampled in the dust.

        • Clifford

          patco, when one compares the “potential risks to potential benefits” for cannabis, vs many prescribed or over-the-counter drugs, cannabis is relatively safe. There has never been a death as a direct result of cannabis, and thousands daily die from prescribed drugs. While I do not claim to be an expert on cannabis during pregnancy, “the jury is still out” on that, I think there are potantial “risks” with many “natural” remedies.

          • patgo

            False dilemma. Why compare cannabis to pharmaceuticals? Pharmaceuticals are deadly. End of argument. It’s not much of a comparison. One is deadly. The other is a little bit better. Most natural remedies are virtually risk free. I have experience with cannabis. No way I will ever allow myself to take a chance of being exposed against my will, ever again. Just the tiniest whiff of smoke gives me a splitting headache. Think closed apartment not sharing ducting with neighboring closed apartment in dead winter, where they are smoking. I don’t normally get headaches. The one time I was tricked into exposure, it shot my short term memory to heck. It scared the living daylights out of me, particularly since I was the designated driver. Cannabis use has greatly increased, and so have fatal accidents linked to it, in Colorado. Don’t claim there has never been a death as a direct result. Any time a person under the influence kills someone in an auto accident, that is a direct result. The problem is, like psychotropics, cannabis doesn’t just affect users. It also harms non-users. And in both cases, all pharmaceuticals included, people excrete this into the water supply and we ALL drink it. I can guarantee you that cannabis use during pregnancy permanently harmed the brain of a child we adopted.

          • tamarque

            You are very wrong. First of all most of the medical cannabis is not the raw weed so there is no smoking and no getting high. Second, if you got high without realizing what was happening then it could have been a scarey event. The vast majority of people who do smoke pot are not so affected or they would not want to do something with such negative effects. Third, it is valid to compare cannabis with other drugs since that is what is on the table for argument. It is also valid to compare use of cannabis with placebo; ie, nothing. Both are scientifically valid approaches and both are done. And I have no idea about the child you adopted as many things could have harmed it before you took the child. Health is a complicated thing and has many synergistic components which work to maintain health. But if you want to see demons, then I am sure you will find them. Such is the nature of prejudice: that does not make it fact.

          • patgo

            You sure know how to win arguments. NOT! The problem with medical cannabis is that it’s the camel’s nose in the tent. NORML ADMITS THIS! I figured out what was happening soon enough. The fact I had inadvertently taken in a HARMFUL SUBSTANCE and I was the designated driver scared the heck out of me. And don’t tell me it doesn’t impair driving. I EXPERIENCED IMPAIRMENT. My husband had a similar experience. I don’t care what the vast majority of people think. That’s the fallacy known as “ad populum”. I don’t care about comparing cannabis with other drugs, either. Other drugs are deadly. So is cannabis. Your point? And I don’t care what is regarded as “scientifically valid”. There is a lot of fraud, and unethical behavior, in science these days. As far as the child we adopted is concerned, you don’t know us or him, and I am certain of why he had the problems he does. I don’t do prejudice. I investigate and then I decide. I have done extensive research on cannabis/marijuana. I want no part of it. Not everything that is natural is beneficial. Locoweed and Jimsonweed are not beneficial, either.

            I do not wish to share the road with someone under the influence of marijuana, and nobody has the right to force me to do so. That alone means we need to put the brakes on this whole thing. I have learned of other substances that are just as effective for medicinal purposes, and much less harmful.

    • Marvin Zinn

      Absolutely! We have the right to choose the treatment we have, not the government, pharmaceutical, or medical procedures! If I belived doctors I would have been dead already 4 times, but insurance will not pay me for what works!

      • Headhunter

        Agree 100%!!!!

  • Allow the main part of the population that is blessed without pre-existing conditions to find their own health insurance in the Marketplace of Insurance companies across State Lines. The population that was born with or acquired pre-existing conditions, set up a special pool of insurance for those persons in this group to be underwritten by the Government but people can shop for their own insurance plans that will benefit their unique health challenges. This would be far better than being put in what use to be called the “High Risk Pool” which is expensive and the level of care is not all that desirable.

    • Clifford

      That would be a “high risk pool” without that name, and insurance companies would then simply charge more, making it unaffordable for many.

  • Carol Petersen

    Anytime you turn toward an insurance company, you are giving away your power to someone else to choose for you. I am in favor of spending programs that empower the individual.

    • Marvin Zinn

      We should be allowed to refuse taxes for something we refuse to accept for ourselves.

      • patgo

        I shouldn’t be forced to pay for other people to poison themselves. And keep in mind, people excrete these poisons into the water supply so all of us and the fish get poisoned, too.

      • d-dectiri

        Hence separate pools, as anh-usa is proposing, right?

    • d-dectiri

      You’re kinda stuck when you’re in a car accident and your legs are in multiple pieces etc… so the catastrophic component insurance has some validity, just not the chemo, heart disrupting gizmo-brained preferences, etc

  • Diane Jones

    the First thing they have to do is take off the Cadillac Tax. That is what is making corporations dump their healthcare. 18% on every policy is too high. Companies average the cost over a period of time and then charge the employees the rate that comes up. This has been going on for a century now and it worked. We never had pre existing conditions clause in there, everyone was covered. Let small businesses join in together on plans. Let a town get a plan together.
    with numbers, you get discounts. Alternative medicine works also. Therapy, massage, acupuncture, they work. NO meds needed for them. Medicare and Medicaid should also go into a drug price war. They are so big; they should have discounted prices. I am watching the single payer policies but I don’t know how they could START IT UP. No in betweeners; you and the doctor. There are ways to have reasonable priced plans but no one can do it overnight. They need a lot of input. What can make it easier for the doctor and patient? What can alleviate all the paper?

    • JeromefromLayton

      Unleashed technology can solve a lot of the problems. Compare the cost of electronic stuff to medical materials and services. Also, notice how Lasix has come down 90% in a little over a decade? That was not a “Government” covered procedure but it could be paid for with HSA money. Adam Smith trumps Karl Marx every time.

      • ca_ssandra

        The cost of Lasix went down because Lasix went off patent, not because of “free markets”.

  • PrayingMantis2

    When the government controls healthcare, there will be amble opportunity for cheating and fraud. We’ve already experienced it with Medicare and Medicaid. See John Schilling’s book “Undercover” for a detail of fraud discovery. It will happen again with universal government run healthcare. Thieves in white shirts and ties will find ways to bilk the government which in the end means the taxpayer will be paying for corporate profits. Even on a small scale, my family has witnessed Medicare overbilling on medical charges, such as charges for an x-ray that never happened.

    • JeromefromLayton

      If they go “single payer”, they will screw the Canadians who will then have to go to other places to get care. Remember that English baby who the Government wants to kill rather than allow it to come to the USA.

    • Clifford

      Obviously there needs to be auditing, and strict enforcement, with significant penalties.

      • PrayingMantis2

        There were mandatory audits and so-called strict enforcement from the early days of Medicare. Where there is a will, there is a way and corporate thieves figure out the way. The only way to keep it from happening is leave it in the commercial world, out of government hands. Corporations are highly motivated to watch their bottom line. The government could not care less.

        • Mike G

          Unfortunately, corporations ARE highly motivated to watch their bottom line, which is exactly the problem of involving them in healthcare in any way. They will never have any concern for individual health issues and will cut corners and trim expenses at every opportunity. You want real death panels? Give corporations complete control of healthcare. Now, I don’t trust the government and I certainly don’t want them running healthcare either, but making government the payee of healthcare costs (via tax dollars) while not allowing them to decide what costs are acceptable or not (that will be up to doctors and other medical practitioners of all stripes) would help to reduce a lot of those issues. I personally am appalled at the idea of a faceless corporation being in charge of what healthcare I am allowed to have and whether or not I live or die based on their bottom line.

          • d-dectiri

            yeah, especially when the data for Obamacare years showed that the CEOs of the major insurers were taking an average of $20 Million PER YEAR PER CEO for the full seven years.. some bottom line management!! rotfloho……

      • d-dectiri

        It’s way worse than that as we just saw in the UK with their DEATH PANELS on display — demanding the death of that 10-month old baby Charlie Gard IN SPITE of the parents having found a specialist in the USA who would take charge with some 50-50 prospect (until the hospital refusals and delays lost those chances as well), plus got million$ funding from donated sources so it wasn’t even going to be a ‘financial burden’ on Brits’ taxes… congress here even cleared the entry hurdles and Trump volunteered transport.. the people of Britain marched and held vigils outside the hospital..

        The UK-govt hospital doctors didn’t have their own power revered and the courts backed them up…. Death Panels are clearly part of the hazards of govt control of your insurance and medical system choices…..

        And we saw similar end-of-life control in Medicare operations — only better in the way that family could still back up the patient, even though it meant taking charge of feeding, routines, coaxing through physical therapy, demanding the IV not be withdrawn when the patient refused their stomach tube……. ghastly burden yet the bills kept coming…. ttyl

        • Mike G

          Not arguing this point…….but how are insurance companies (large corporations) any different? They would LOVE to refuse people coverage for potentially fatal (and expensive to treat) conditions. Countless people have been dropped in the past because they acquired such conditions while fully covered (I know people this happened to in the 90’s and early 2000’s). Obviously, corporations require some sort of regulation or oversight to do the right thing and to honor their policies. So it is far from just the government that has “death panels”.

          • d-dectiri

            The difference — and it’s major for the time being but not much longer — is the govt has the authorized guns of ‘law enforcement’ to back up their govt bureaucratic deciders. As you will likely agree, the day is almost here when corporations (as if they were people) have the power to expect the judges to automatically side with them.

            That case in Ohio of the Amish teen who was talked into trying chemo by some imposing high-priced ‘research’ specialist then changed her mind when she saw the reality. Her parents tried to b back her up but the doctors and a social worker took the Amish to court to FORCE the kid to submit to more chemo… note the researcher and hospital were being paid major bucks for each victim and dose for this project. The judge sided with the criminal social worker and doctors so the family enlisted Amish community help and escaped to Puerto Rico where the child was cured. But that didn’t persuade the judge to give up the relentless social worker and the hospital to cease and desist in spite of public protesting. The furor finally disuaded the hospital to back off… govt has the guns AND BADGES TO MAKE YOU A FUGITIVE AT EVERY TRAIN STOP, AIRLINE, BOAT DOCK AND IN BETWEEN….

            Corporations are nearly there so I’d agree, no sane observer of these events would want the corporations to have that sort of control of the patient wellbeing, decidedly not the hospital or even the doctors…. You’re so patient with your doctor but he’s a drug pusher by any standard. ttyl

  • JeromefromLayton

    About 100 years ago, the AMA got with the FDA to get a monopolistic lock on medicine. This increased the cost of medical care. Fix that! Then, during WWII, “Industry” convinced the IRS to allow “health care” as a Business Expense. Problem: That same exemption is not available to consumers and the “Insurance” people tell the patient who they can see. The Fix for this problem is expanding the HSA to include non-prescription medicine and paying for health insurance. That should be in any bill coming out of Congress.

  • dutchelm

    STOP USING OUR HEALTH MONEY TO FILL CORPORATE COFFERS THIS MONEY IN MEDICARE IS MY HEALTH MONEY IF CORPORATION ARE NOT PROFITABLE LIKE FOSSIL FUEL LETS SHUT THEM DOWN BUT FIRST THEY CLEAN UP THEIR MESS. WE THE PEOPLE NEED HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. NOT FOR CORPORATIONS.

    • Headhunter

      Exactly!!!

  • Junior1950

    And the same as with Auto insurance, why not allow and encourage Health Insurance Providers to operate across State lines?? This would certainly encourage competitive rates, thus hopefully lowering insurance premiums!!

    • Headhunter

      That would make sense.

  • Naomi Aldort

    I was hoping that by “parallel” you meant to allow insurance of natural healers of all kinds to be covered. The whole medical system is a corrupt system as it is a monopoly of one medical modality to the exclusion of all others. This one modality is historically new and failing in every way except for emergency and injury. Insurance must cover ALL healing systems of the patient’s choice.

    • d-dectiri

      What’s needed is a PRE-primary care that is alternative… OK, the need to separate the ‘pools’ is basically sorta clear and valuable, but where are the midwives, the abundant 24/7 urgent care sites, the naturopathic physicians with hospital privileges, the chiropractors as primary care as well, homeopaths for vaxxing, plus the orthomolecular psychiatrists instead of deadly drug-pushers, and EMTs with licenses to do IVCs and hyperbaric oxygen…

      They are the TRUE primary care that would service the better-food infrastructure ‘pool’, and that would complement the catastrophic coverages and create the safety net to ensure people get care when needed… they have to be in the picture as well to get people to launch for the abstract ‘pool’ key to the catastrophe care/cost picture.

  • Ron Coffman

    Just about every other civilized nation on the planet socializes medicine. If one studies the history of medical insurance in the U.S., you will find that, at one time, insurance companies paid what the doctor asked, with no limits or caps. At that time, most doctors made a solid middle-class living. Then they started charging more and more, and the insurance firms had to put caps on what they paid. This was not the fault of the insurers, but forced by greed within the medical community. Maybe we need to eliminate the concept of having the doctor directly paid by insurance. Maybe doctors should always bill the patient, regardless of whether they are covered, and let the patient deal with the insurance provider. This way, the patient sees exactly what is billed, and the doctor and/or hospital would not know if the patient even has insurance. Maybe this will help get costs in line.

    • d-dectiri

      ??? huhn… if the patient is the one who solely deals with the insurers then what happened to your desire for ‘socializing’ medicine… are you suggesting that the govt establish a ‘voucher’??? a taxpaid subsidy, paid directly to the parents and to individuals….??? a budget established by govt coming from whose taxes….including a budget for catastrophe insurance… ooooooy! Who would decide the budget, as we’ve seen how hospitals keep two prices on their lists, one supersized number for the uninsured (to be written off as a loss to keep IRS entertained) and a funded number fed to insurers for their figuring….. Refusing to pay it is the only sane way to deal with this game now…. and negotiate it down with partial payments….. ttyl

  • Alice

    Most of the questions below can be answered by doing some research on the Rockefeller clan’s invention of the “patent medicine” business they built into the Big Pharma controlled medical death industry we see today. The Rockefellers created the AMA in order to more closely control both licensing and medical school curriculum. Any entity demonstrating natural healing was systematically denigrated, slandered and crushed by the Rockefeller billions in political and media control. The Rockefeller clan also unleashed GMO and other deadly “food-like” substances upon the world because they are profound eugenicists and absolutely dedicated to de-population. Look it up…

  • dutchelm

    TO DO A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS REMEMBER WHY YOU ARE DOING IT, NOT HOW CAN WE MAKE MONEY DOING IT, SINCE THINKING THE LATER WILL NOT HELP YOU WITH THE REAL REASON.

  • Wilma Ingram

    That we could have the choice of not having to wait for referrals.

  • Thomas Waldenfels

    Great comments below … and here’s a recommendation. Language matters. NEVER call what they’re foisting on us “health care.” It’s disease and accident care. And while the mainstream medical types do a terrific job of accident care, they whiff completely when it comes to caring for chronic illness, which is where all the costs come in.

    I insist on calling the ACA the clueless disease care and cost shifting act. It really should be the clueless and often barbaric disease care, cost shifting and insurance and drug company relief act … but that’s too long.

    All I want is catastrophic coverage, and I’m not so sure about that, because I would never take a chronic disease problem to a mainstream doc, and those are the only ones whose protocols would be covered. I’d self-insure the cost of going to an integrative doc and get an accident policy IF I WERE FREE TO DO SO IN THE LAND OF THE FREE.

  • Pro-Israeal

    This is so against our Constitution. It is the case of “putting the frog in the pot and slowly turning up the heat”. Get involved with Convention of States, it is Article 5 of our constitution, that states a 2/3 majority of states can effect amendments, and that needs to happen. Term limits, outlawing changes to our healthcare without a referendum, make it mandatory for members of Congress ro reveal sources of income, etc. We are being hearded like sheep, our Constitution guarantees us self-governance. Demand it!