Late-night talk show host, Jimmy Kimmel, recently made national headlines when, standing before his live audience, he tearfully advocated for the establishment of a national healthcare system for all Americans, regardless of ability to pay.

His emotional plea came as he described how his infant son had been born with a severe heart defect. In a quivering voice, he said that his child--like all other children who shouldn't have to die--deserved the humanitarian benefit of a national universal system of medical care that would be available to all, regardless of monetary means or political partisanship. Choking back his feelings, he said that it was simply the right thing to do.

Here's a video of Kimmel's anguished, yet grateful, description of what happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmWWoMcGmo0


Or, as a cartoon puts it:

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/6112e19c6db33f0a52579d0fe6bbc0ae847793c1/c=0-133-3847-3025&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2017/05/05/Phoenix/Phoenix/636295948734537399-Benson-COLOR-KImmel-05-05-17-2c-.jpg


Kimmel isn't the only one who says Americans need, and are morally entitled to, a system of universal national healthcare.

Moroni's Believe it or Not, LDS Church doctrine says the same thing.

David Mason--a Mormon and assistant professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, maintains that official LDS theology is firmly and originally rooted in support of collective national healthcare. He shires:

"The anxiety that the Christian right and the liberal left and everyone in between . . . felt about the possibility that an immeasurable, religious weirdness [would] soon occupy the Oval Office in the form of [Mitt] Romney ought to [have been] assuaged for good by the way that Romney reacted to the Supreme Court’s support of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. . . . [He} issued a] rejection of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Obamacare’s mandate . . . . Romney stood before Washington, D.C., microphones to declare his intent to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to appeal to voters to vote him into a position to do it. . . .

"Which is to say, Romney’s response to the Supreme Court was not a Mormon response. It was a political response.

"Had Romney responded as a Mormon, rather than as a presidential candidate, he would have warmly embraced Obamacare as a sign that the country is finally, after a century and a half, catching the Mormon vision. Everyone in the United States has some sense of the mythic collectivism embedded in Mormon culture. Mormons, go the legends, can travel, willy-nilly, throughout the country and find their needs met everywhere. Mormons need only ask their local bishops to get money to pay mortgages and car loans, to buy food, to fill prescriptions, to remodel bathrooms, to cover gambling debts, and to get their bass guitars out of hock. Mormons keep giant warehouses of food out of which any Mormon can walk with armfuls of staples and luxuries, string-free.

"The mechanism that makes such collective strength possible is the tax or mandate or what-have-you called tithes and offerings. Not only do Mormons kick 10% of their ongoing income towards Salt Lake City to ensure the fiscal health of the LDS Church, they each drop $10, $20, $50 and more additional dollars a month into their local congregations to ensure that none of their own faces either insolvency or discomfort.

"Mormons figured out the basic principles of Obamacare in the 19th century. Joseph Smith himself developed a collectivist system in which all were to have everything in common so that no one would be poor. The early Mormons weren’t very good at having everything in common, so Smith’s ideal didn’t stick very well. But the Mormon migration to the desert wonderland of Utah was as successful as it was because the fear that they would all die, otherwise, moved the early Mormons to pool their resources in a radical way. And what we might now deride as Big Brother social programs kept those early Mormons alive against the perpetual water crisis, monster crickets, harsh winters, and the sabre rattling of a paranoid federal government. Brigham Young even revived Smith’s collectivist ideal in some of the western settlements the Mormons established around the west.

"Mormonism survived, and Mormons like Romney are here nowadays, partly as a consequence of the fundamentally Mormon drive to collect resources for everyone’s good. . . .

"What Romney [Would have done] and [not done] as president ([had he gotten] there) [woukd have] surely [been] pushed more by politics than by his faith. Those of us who are Mormons will yet have to await the moment in which a Mormon brings our immeasurable weirdness to the White House and drives the whole country toward a collectivist utopia."

("Romney, Obamacare and Mormonism," by David Mason, "Assocuared Press," 16 July 2012)
-----


Stop the Deseret News presses! Who would've thought? Mormonism is for the Benevolent, Mother of All Big Brothers Gub'ment.



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2017 06:38PM by steve benson.

I dunno, it's kinda difficult *for me* to give credit to Mormons when the phenomena precedes and exceeds (in successful and sustained experiences) LDS' supposed caring is sharing.

I realize my bias but again, Smith & Co. were not the originators nor the best example of universal anything except el grande rip off.

It's another issue Mormons are confused about, imo. They can't even get the hot drinks/it's not about caffeine/it is about caffeine/don't go to Starbucks/Pepsi is evil/Prophet is Pepsi, etc. straight so I don't expect consistency ever from this group!

I don't know, he went well beyond healthcare and property. All things in common, even wives.

If you like your united order, you can keep your united order.

Is this why he hasn't hosted his show lately!???

Which is no mediocre accomplishment considering his competition for that title.

I wish the U.S. would go to single-payer, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. A good friend of mine, who is an American citizen but also possesses an E.U. passport, emigrated to Great Britain ahead of the recent Brexit vote. Thus, she was grandfathered in, and eligible for residency there. She is able to work but has multiple, complex health issues including an auto-immune disorder. Even with comprehensive health insurance, she was not able to get a good quality of care in the U.S. She recently told me that she is *much* more satisfied with the British N.H.S. system in terms of care. It isn't perfect, but it represents a great advancement over what she has been used to.

She emigrated solely due to the inadequacy of the U.S. health care system to meet her needs.

I always hear people say the United States has the best healthcare services in the world. I always say to them, it doesn't matter because you and I will never be able to afford it.

Steve, for those who know what the Kimmel family experienced, your depiction of Kimmel and Trump could almost stand alone without words!

Thank you for posting it here for us!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2017 12:02PM by kathleen.

Steve, be prepared for an avalanche of looney e-mail.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve, be prepared for an avalanche of looney
> e-mail.


And please be (again) so generous as to share your hobby with us!

I choked up a bit when I saw that clip. Like most everything, when something in the government doesn't work, it is the poor, week, and helpless, like children, who suffer the most.

I have great admiration for your work, Steve. Spot on, like always. Thanks for being you. :)



Long before "Obamacare" entered our national lexicon, I regularly pointed out the shameful nature of "coffee can" baby "insurance." You've seen it. They are the coffee cans wrapped in paper, placed on check-out counters across country, bearing words like,

"Baby William was born with [this illness] (or 5-year old Cathy has leukemia...) and needs [treatment]! We can't afford the ..."

Those who believe that we should return to those days have a mental defect of some type. Maybe they're anti-social, psychopaths, or got burned by their own kids. Maybe they have the moral compass of Ebenezer Scrooge, and are in need of a supernatural adjustment. The ending of that story would be vastly different, were one of them the author.

I side with Thomas Jefferson on this:

“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….”

Hold on one second, there. A "right" to go on living is actually enshrined in our most vital founding national document? There are no caveats like, "but only if you can afford treatment."

Even if we were to discard those self-evident truths as the basis of our freedoms, we are left to face ourselves in the mirror, both as individuals and as a nation. Those "Consitutionalists," those who scream the most loudly about "socialized medicine," or "where do we draw the line?" had better at least look at the document (and country) which they claim to be supposedly "defending."

Where do we "draw the line?" How about drawing one under the word, "Life?"

And because I have no such dilemmas or dementia, I'll add that I know that they know the word, it's the same word which these types usually preface with the words, "right to," generally dished immediately prior the waterworks and/or self-righteous indignation sermon.

I could as easily be describing poopy, certain politicians or talk show hosts, those great defenders of Capitalism, er, The "Constitution," those inept word meisters of The Morally Bankrupt Con Job.



Damn! It's so easy to confuse the word "life" with the word "education!"

Wow, I never thought of that, that Britain bring out the EU would improve their healthcare system. We lived there for 6 years while in the military ( 2 tours).
The healthcare there was a disaster. People were always complaining about waiting months just to see a doctor, being on waiting list for surgery.
I've been with a couple of friends there on their appointments, and it was standing room only in the waiting room.
They even have " health lotteries" for certain conditions or meds ( shortages), where that year , only people who live in that postal code get certain meds.
My husband had a chance to get a civilian job there when he got out, but we came back here because I have a rare medical condition, and was shocked when Obama forced the healthcare law on us.
Remember that it didn't pass.
Our insurance went up 4 times, and half of the benefits disappeared.
Maybe, we'll end up there again, but I don't know how this EU thing will effect it.
I had a couple of British friends there , who had a riveted insurance and the care was great, but you have to live near a bigger city, and you can only use the NHS, only for emergencies, and they charge you for it too.

Sorry, meant they had private insurance

My friend who immigrated to Great Britain said that her wait is 2-3 weeks for a non-emergency appointment, but same day for urgent care under the NHS. She said that the M.D. in her neighborhood will even pay house calls if you can't come to see him. She lives in London. She has a lot of health issues and is having a much better experience overall in G.B. as opposed to her care in the U.S.

Based on her report, I would say her standard of living overall (taking taxes into account) is roughly the same in G.B.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2017 02:59PM by summer.

Yeah, they do make housecalls. The London area is good. A lot of nice, big hospitals , so you don't really need private.
We lived in Suffolk county, as your friend will tell you,each county is different.
London has good doctors too. Smaller villages are the worse . Bury St Edmund was always getting written up

Oh yeah, they still have to pay up to 40 % of their income for the NHS still, even if they don't/ can't use it.
I don't mind paying higher taxes so others can get free healthcare, IF they don't mess with people's healthcare who do have good healthcare, that's what people are upset about, not paying more taxes

Yep, the more money and control we give our government, the better off we are.

"Free" healthcare, education, food, clothing, shelter - all essential and guaranteed rights.

I mean, I've never seen any fraud, waste or abuse in government programs. Of course, I once saw no wrong with church, either.

And with free healthcare, people will take better care of their health, right? And won't overuse the system, right?

Government programs always end up as planned - bombing people eliminates terrorism, handing out welfare eliminates poverty, war on drugs eliminates drugs, spending more on education makes us smarter, government spending reduces costs, government programs eliminate corporate greed, taking more money to feed bureaucracies stimulates the economy and poor people then get better jobs and can better afford healthcare.

Isn't it wonderful!

My wife watched her public grade school force kids through the breakfast line as they would come in off the bus. Apparently now breakfast is a right, and it is very expensive to fry an egg and make a slice of toast.

As I said, just turn everything over to the state.

When you can't make a reasonable argument for your point of view, make up a punching bag.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2017 09:52PM by steve benson.

Amazing that with the horrid healthcare that HockeyRat barely survived, the UK is 33rd in life expectancy. US is 43rd.

Same charges about healthcare have been leveled at Canada that are leveled at UK. Canada is 18th in life expectancy.

Somebody's making stuff up, and I don't think it is the people compiling mortality tables.

https://www.infoplease.com/world/health-and-social-statistics/life-expectancy-countries-0

I wanted to say hey, our system isn't perfect but it's great and it doesn't break our personal bank, not even close.

I pay between $60.00 and $75.00 per month that gives me access to the entire system. Anything I need in the way of medical care, GP, specialists, surgery, other treatment. (Not including adjunctive care such as physio although govt insurance kicks in for that as well for many people such as seniors). Also does not include most medications (unless you have a separate drug plan, which many get through employers or private plans, which I have never thought to obtain). Seniors, I believe, do not pay that monthly premium (and I believe it is only applicable in B.C.; the rest of Canada doesn't even have that and our provincial govt, in the middle of election season, is promising to eliminate that and get it from our abundant taxes).

A family member recently had cancer surgery. It took five months from first GP visit (for which they waited six days/routine appointment) to investigations (imaging, lab, biopsies) to surgeon visit to preop prep (more imaging and lab and full assessment and teaching re op and postop) to surgery. All that cost them nothing; no monthly premium, no extra charges, no fees. Then there was the (short) hospital stay, postop calls, revisits with surgeon and GP, x-rays, lab, more postop teaching, including consult with pharmacy. Postop meds - free. Postop imaging - free. Follow up care - free. Ongoing care - free. Other treatment needed - free.

The wait from first indication to imaging to biopsies to diagnosis to surgeon was a couple of months. That was agonizing, true enough. Mostly it was a case of waiting for appointments. It was hard to tell myself to be patient for a few weeks here and another week there. Space is limited, true enough. Lots of other patients, sure. And the stress of the wait was worse than that associated with the whole hospital thing. (Speaking for myself; the affected family member never complained).

I am interested in the system, how health care works, both here and in the U.S. But I can't follow all the ins and outs of the U.S. system. It seems so unduly complicated to me. Not to mention, of course, being hellishly expensive. The costs I've heard for individuals are absolutely prohibitive, even for those who work full time. It further seems that it will be more confusing (at least from the outside) and full of inequality if/when it is administered state by state rather than being a national plan (same for all). Sounds like health care would then depend on geography, tough for those in certain areas and easier for others just depending where they live. But overall, expensive for most, prohibitive for many.

If my relative had had to pay for all that medical treatment that would not have been possible. (Of course, again, we do pay a lot through general taxes). Most Canadians are content that we look after people in need of medical treatment. It seems a big part of having a good society. As healthy as possible. Equal in that important way. Most of us do not begrudge at all the medical care that others receive. That's good for them, good for our communities and at some point, likely, good for ourselves.

The closest I can come to understanding the difficulties around health care for our southern neighbours is that circumstances and/or philosophies of care vary from state to state. That makes it complicated? Or something like that? As well as concerns re govt "interference", the difference in philosophy about big govt or small? Not to mention the huge gaps between rich and poor.

But, again, if we in my family had to pay the huge premiums and deductibles we'd all be dead. We just couldn't do it.

We don't see universal health care as big govt run amok or being intrusive in our lives. More like, we pay for it through taxes and it's our right as well as part of our philosophy of being Canadian - providing good health care for all, even non-citizens when necessary, even if they can't pay.

I wish it could be simpler and more accessible for all in the U.S. I feel for those in difficulties because it's not.