One point that keeps coming up about health care reform is "who is going to pay for it."
Primarily, we have to remember that money is a social institution, in fact, walnuts could be money (unit of exchange), and there is no difference. Ultimately, money or walnuts would just be the shadow after the exchange. Fundamentally, you do not have to have money to have health care, obviously, health care is already there. Money is just a social institution invented by those who own the printing presses, who make the money, which they to sell to us, the citizens.
So then, "who is going to pay for it"?
Money is a phenomenon (an occurrence in life), essentially, a social institution (an organization). Consequently, if for some reason you have to have this organization to have health care reform, therefore, (a no brainer) let the ones who have plenty money and own the printing presses pay for it. Or, better yet, let's just do away with the institution of money and let's let walnuts be our medium of exchange, because, I have plenty of walnuts. Of most importance, most citizens have never had enough of this phenomenon (money) to even become vested members of the social institution called money.
For this reason, it would seem that if you have to have money, and lots of it, to have health care reform, obviously, then it seems (a no brainer) that the ones who have lots of it are going to have to pay for it. And, obviously, the big bankers (big business) are the ones who own the printing presses and are the CEOs of this social institution called money. In other words, if we are going to use the social institution of money as a medium of exchange for moral applications of life, (health care reform is a moral application of life) then, it would seem a no brainer that the CEOs of this institution would have to be the ones to pay for it. After all, they have all the money.
However, if they do not want to pay for it, I say let's do away with this institution of money and let good will toward men be the medium of exchange. I am sure there are millions who would gladly exchange gratitude for health care. Why, because money has nothing to do with the essence of morality, essentially, what is right and what is wrong with health care.
So, who is going to pay for health care reform? What is the medium of exchange for the right thing to do for humanity? What place does the institution of money have in morality? Should only the members who are vested in the institution of money have health care? By the way, how does one become a member of this institution? No doubt, some work hard to become members, some are born members, some are inherent members, and some become members by luck. You have to wonder, does morality actually exist outside of the institution of money?
