Funny thing about licensed medical work, American doctors are border hopping to unlicensed practices that other Americans (and some Canadians) go to because it's more financially beneficial to both parties

And these are people who are already licensed

In the US we have medical tourism where people go out of area or even out of country for expensive surgeries that are not covered by insurance. I myself ended up going that route in 2009 when I needed a procedure not covered by insurance.

I'll be the first to say our system is deranged, I'm just not sure how people will take to dying when richer people live. It's be the same think if we had mass starvation happening - the public wouldn't tolerate it.

In the end we have hospitals in the middle. We are forced by law to provide care to everyone regardless of ability to pay but the drug companies and equipment companies and construction companies and other vendors change us what the market allowed.

We're being squeezed and it's killing us.

What are your thoughts on a possible solution?

Well one, a really good look at regulations

We're working to prepare for a regulation called USP800 which tells us we have to protect staff against hazardous drugs they manipulate during patent care. Sounds good, right?

Problem is we are required to treat teratogens the same way we treat carcinogens.

In other words a 60yo male nurse has to dress up in personal protective equipment to give an 80yo guy a drug that can cause birth defects in gestating women.

It's kinda loony

I understand giving women of childbearing interest the protections, and we shouldn't hold those needs against them, but to require it for everyone seems silly. One size fits all regulations are a problem. Just tell us what ends we need to meet and leave us to meet those ends in our own way, then audit us to make sure we meet them.

You want drugs made in a really clean room? Tell us how clean and how often we need to test. Then let us figure out the best way to make the room that clean. And then audit us.

It's real that 25% of health care dollars go to insurance administration. Here some regulation could be helpful in standardizing that process. I'm a fan of paying providers for outcomes. Pay us the cost of basically doing the business and any margin comes only if we provide good outcomes. A lot simpler to administer I would think.

But the biggest questions we as a society need to ask is do we regulate quality and do we regulate access? In other words, do we ensure health care is given at or above a certain level by licensure and audits? And do we say people have a right to it?

Answer those two questions and the options drill down a lot.

If we say no guarantee of quality and no right, the costs go WAY down and our deficit is solved. But is that really what the majority of Americans really want?

It would also totally upend our economy given nearly 20% of the entire economy is health care now.

If not done right it would be like Florida Lands all over again circa 1929.

@DrYuriMom Oh yeah, theonomy is definitely reminiscent of Sharia in that both declare their states to be divine mandates. I still believe that religious freedom should exist, but I believe that the separation of Church and State to be both impossible and undesirable.

That is why I specifically want theodemocracy along with religious liberty and freedom, but I still want the law itself to divinely in-ordered.

What about those of us who don't fit in the accepted theocracy? Gays, lesbians, transpersons?

That could be said for the ideology of any state

And I don't want an equivalent to Sharia law or Papal Temporal Power, I don't want some Clerical Fascistic government. I think it is important though to justify your laws based on a higher moral principle.

That is why I personally believe it is impossible to have a fully secular state because in the end you have to justify your system on some moral grounds. And although it is indeed possible to separate morals and religion at least somewhat, the two will always be interlinked.

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.*

I don't necessarily disagree, I just am skittish about anything that takes us back to when lesbians were persecuted, gays were prosecuted, and trans were liquidated.

It wasn't long ago at all

Nah, I personally am accepting of all men and woman, even if they are trans.

But there are two genders

Or the religious arguments for miscegenation

I will agree to two genders. I'll even agree that to jump from one to another you need to make anatomical changes to comply with where you feel you should be.

^

And even if religious institutions will not condone a marriage between two people the state has the duty to provide them with a legal marriage.

Even in your proposed government that is steeped in religion?

Yes

I wasn't always religious. My parents are both Catholic but neither are practicing. I am nineteen now and only became religious a few years ago when I discovered Gnosticism, but I have expanded out to cover all aspects of primarily Abrahamic faith.

I now believe a synthesis of traditionalism with modern liberal ideals must be achieved if the West hopes to survive as a culture.

I similarly believe religion had a falling out in the West due to its lack of ability to adapt due to a rigid exclusivist form of religion normally found in Abrahamism.

What enticed me about Gnosticism is that it was an undercurrent of Christianity that was around since the beginning and only became extinct in the 13th century with the Cathars.