Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > FREE Federalized Health Care      Home login  
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 51
FREE Federalized Health CarePage 3 of 31    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)

Cigna made the decision to have her die and there was a LIVER for her but that would mean Cigna profits would be reduced and some people belief profits for private health insurance companies are MORE important than peoples lifes.

The fallacy for me in trying to create a universal health system in the US similar to Canada is that health care in Canada is government funded. Most hospitals in the US are privately funded. So it seems more of a budgeting and tax issue. Although it does serve as a political selling point very well. How likely is advocation of this new health system in the US to change the way healthcare is funded in the US? Probably in all likelihood not. It is easy to say what a budget can do if you never managed one before. If you can change the priorities of the wealthy then more power to you.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 52
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/27/2007 8:32:09 AM
>>>A couple of libertarians do NOT represent what most Canadians believe.


So now I don't count as a Canadian because my beliefs are unpopular? Isn't that elitism? "Most Canadians Agree with me" "I Don't" "Well, your beliefs are unpopular, so you're not really a Canadian"
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 53
view profile
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/27/2007 10:47:10 AM
Wealthy people shouldn't get any better care than poor people. NO ONE IS BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. To think otherwise is arrogant and elitist. "Cadillac care" my foot!! Health care should be the same high quality for EVERYONE.

Good post niceguy. We should fire all the private insurance CEOs and make them struggle, making them feel the pinch of being denied care. Even better yet, it would be fun to seize their assets and force them to live like poor people for a while. They'll change their rotten tune in a hurry

AG, the words stupid and idiot are not profanities and are directed not at posters but at politicians and private insurance company CEOs who are full of baloney. Even there, I watch it and use other words besides obscenities. AG, using obscenities only makes you sound desperate to make everyone else think the way you do. Dallas Flier, at least my language is clean and the words are not directed at people in the Forums. If you don't like it don't read my posts. But at the same time, I can see AG's desperation through the obscenities that she uses.

If I call Bush the "Idiot in Chief" it is not a forum rule violation, nor is it an obscenity. It is not aimed at any posters, but an expression of my opinion of a particular politician. But AG's use of "crappy care" comes across as crude as opposed to respectful. The crude language she uses does not leave a favorable impression. If I have a negative impression of something I use clean words to express my thoughts and am careful not to aim those adjectives at any poster.

I am frankly unimpressed with the arguments made against universal health care.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 54
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/27/2007 6:35:27 PM
>>>People in canada do NOT want American styled health insurance companies to operated in Canada ...

Doesn't the fact that I exist kinda contradict that?

I mean, it must be comforting to you to know that you speak for 30 Million people, but thats simply not true.

>>>Calling the health care system in canada crappy is to a canadian the same as someone BURNING an american flag to an american and is INSULTING to Canadian.

How is that?

If an American calls their Welfare system inadequate, is it the same as an American spitting on their constitution? No

One represents freedom, the other represents social programs and, depending on who you talk to, courrption. And what IF the Canadian Health care system is actually crappy? Should we be afraid to say things we believe to be true because we might offend some people? How can we ever hope to progress if we recognize that our social programs or even our methods are completely without scrutiny and have no room for improvement, and to claim they do is considered offensive.

>>>AG I don't know how you do it. It's like trying to teach rocket science to chickens.

I agree completely....I was giving it my best, and she come in here and just floors all their arguments with sweet lady logic....
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 55
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/27/2007 9:18:53 PM

have a little respect, if not for the man for his office

Firstly, excuse me, but when exactly were you elected the propriety police?

Secondly, the man deserves no respect.

Thirdly, the office is respected for itself, but it is demeaned when an idiot brings it down like shrub, ergo its respect is diminshed.

Lastly, asking/demanding someone to not speak badly about a president or the job he's doing is pretty much the most un-American I can think of ever doing.
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/27/2007 10:30:20 PM
Here I thought, retirement would be a life of leisure, yet we have stories of old people being abused, attacked, and held hostage???? Is it a nursing home or a maximum security prison??? Are people safer in jail, than in a nursing home in Canada???
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 57
view profile
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/28/2007 4:44:30 PM
I would like to compliment Iwarrior on a beautiful post that says it so eloquently, that UHC benefits everybody from rich to poor.

Niceguy, keep up the great work you are doing rebutting AG's "arguments", which can never impress me.

My Dad was a legislator who refused to use foul language, and was an honest man. He was loved and respected by all of his fellow representatives (Democratic and Republican alike) because he was honorable and decent. Last I checked some of those words that a certain woman is using in this thread are considered profane.

Amen to the gentleman who said that Bush has done great dishonor to the office of the presidency. The names I call Bush are well-earned ones. If my father was alive today I know that he would have called Bush "a dirty end of a mop." That was one of my Dad's favorite expressions which is much better than saying something (unprintable).

With that said the arguments against universal health care are getting weaker and weaker with time. The same old tired "oh, UHC is Communist" is so full of baloney that I can fill a kitchen full of baloney sandwiches with that nonsense

Communism does not allow anyone to have property and denies democracy. All of the democratic nations EXCEPT the US have universal health care. Well, if there were good arguments against UHC then more nations would NOT have it. GOTCHA!!!!!
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 58
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/28/2007 6:28:20 PM
1. No
2. No
3. I don't know. I haven't done enough research to make an informed decision.
4. No
5. No
6. Yes
7. No

I have some questions for you;
Should someone who has led a healthy lifestyle but is randomly stricken with a previously undetected medical condition that is deemed ineligible by the provider lose everything they own?
Should someone who has led a healthy lifestyle but is randomly stricken with any medical condition that is deemed ineligible by the provider lose everything they own?
Should someone who has always had insurance but is downsized or had their job outsourced be forced to never get coverage again because of a "pre-existing condition" that wasn't pre-existing when they started that insurance?
Should someone who had 100% employer-paid insurance but loses their job have to pay as much as 7 times the employer rates for equal or even diminshed coverage?
Should someone who has made all the right decisions but suddenly finds themselves in dire financial straits have to forego insurance in order to maintain the roof over his family's head?

You see UHC as something that rewards lazy people with the fruits of your labors.
I see UHC see as a bulwark against my losing coverage, with the added benefit of helping those who are otherwise unable to protect themselves. I see it as protection against a corrupt industry. I see it as a way to end bankruptcies that result from medical expenses. I see it as the means to insure no one ever has to ponder the question; "Medicine or food this month?"

You will never grasp the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" You will likely attack it for the person who popularized it.

Ignoring that, are you a xian?

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
(Acts 4:34-35)
Joined: 2/5/2007
Msg: 59
view profile
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/28/2007 7:03:53 PM
Using existing government run insurance programs as examples, it seems unlikely that going from a 51% socialized system to a 100% socialized system would be an improvement. Millions of Americans have had serious problems dealing with these state run monopolies, but have no choice in the matter. If you refuse to pay for any of these programs, you go to jail. Why should the federal or state governments take your money and make you wade through bureaucracy to get some of your own money back? Why are you made to pay over $10,000 per year for a government run public school system when less than 3500 of that is actually spend on basic education? Why do state run monopolies lose billions of dollars every year? The public sector unions have been absolutely ruthless in lobbying for more tax money from the treasury, and have even fired teachers and state workers for blowing the whistle on corruption in government. Why should we have to buy any insurance services from them?

Before government and the lawyers got into health care, medical treatment was cheap. In some parts of the country, you didn't even need insurance. Doctors made house calls, and there were enough medical professionals to go around--professional associations had not set the bar so high yet to create the current shortages of nurses, surgeons, and medical specialists.

How can we take a system that does not offer enough qualified professionals, fully socialize it, and somehow have enough people to do the work when there aren't enough professionals to handle the workload right now?
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 60
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/28/2007 9:01:11 PM

Before government and the lawyers got into health care, medical treatment was cheap

Patently false. Ever heard of HMOs?

The earliest form of HMOs can be seen in a number of prepaid health plans. In 1910, the Western Clinic in Tacoma, Washington offered lumber mill owners and their employees certain medical services from its providers for a premium of $0.50 per member per month. This is considered by some to be the first example of an HMO. However, Ross-Loos Medical Group, established in 1929, is considered to be the first HMO in the United States; it was headquartered in Los Angeles and initially provided services for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) and Los Angeles County employees. Approximately 500 DWP employees enrolled at a cost of $1.50 each per month. Within a year, the Los Angeles Fire Department signed up, then the Los Angeles Police Department, then the Southern California Telephone Company, (now Telstra) and more. By 1951, enrollment stood at 35,000 and included teachers, county and city employees. In 1982 through the merger of the Insurance Company of North America (INA) founded in 1792 and Connecticut General (CG) founded in 1865 came together to become CIGNA. Ross-Loos Medical Group, became now known as CIGNA HealthCare. Also in 1929 Dr. Michael Shadid created a health plan in Elk City, Oklahoma in which farmers bought shares for $50 to raise the money to build a hospital. The medical community did not like this arrangement and threatened to suspend Shadid's licence. The Farmer's Union took control of the hospital and the health plan in 1934. Also in 1929, Baylor Hospital provided approximately 1,500 teachers with prepaid care. This was the origin of Blue Cross. Around 1939, state medical societies created Blue Shield plans to cover physician services, as Blue Cross covered only hospital services. These prepaid plans burgeoned during the Great Depression as a method for providers to ensure constant and steady revenue.

In 1970, the number of HMOs declined to less than 40. Paul Ellwood, often called the "father" of the HMO, began having discussions with what is today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that led to the enactment of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This act had three main provisions:

Grants and loans were provided to plan, start, or expand an HMO
Certain state-imposed restrictions on HMOs were removed if the HMOs were federally certified
Employers with 25 or more employees were required to offer federally certified HMO options alongside indemnity upon request
In 1971, Dr. Gordon K MacLeod MD developed and became the director of the United State's first federal Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) program. He was recruited by Elliot Richardson, former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

This last provision, called the dual choice provision, was the most important, as it gave HMOs access to the critical employer-based market that had often been blocked in the past. The federal government was slow to issue regulations and certify plans until 1977, when HMOs began to grow rapidly. The dual choice provision expired in 1995.
Joined: 2/9/2006
Msg: 61
view profile
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 1:24:56 PM
If you think Health Insurance is expensive NOW, just wait and see what it costs when it's "FREE"
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 62
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 2:57:55 PM

HR676 would make private insurance illegal and private care nonexistent.



(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

(b) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.

Not illegal. Only illegal if it duplicates... So you can still pay for insurance if you'd like.
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 63
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 4:23:42 PM
Paying sales tax is not the same as paying income tax

Where are you getting the sales tax from?

Look, I don't know if you've ever been in upper management or run your own business, but you can't just have employees and not pay taxes for them. You might think that every illegal that works gets paid under the table, but that's just logistically impossible. The majority of them are getting paid above the table, but with "borrowed" socials. Therefore, most of them are actually paying taxes.

I don't want illegals here anymore than you, but there is nothing worse than irrational fear. Your fears about rampant illegal abuse of the system hr676 would create are purely irrational.

Oh, by the way, you missed one;

(c) Presumption- Individuals who present themselves for covered services from a participating provider shall be presumed to be eligible for benefits under this Act, but shall complete an application for benefits in order to receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and have payment made for such benefits.

This is the portion that establishes that you can not just walk in and get care, which is about the only way an illegal would be able to get care other than emergency services.

Morover, the application must be submitted, and reviewed, at which time the eligibility (due to citizenship, for instance) would be established. If they are ineligible, the plan does not call for, or allow for just sending out cards to anyone.

I agree that part of the problems in America are a result of a seemingly endless influx of immigrants via illegal entry, but your fears here are, I believe, baseless.
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 64
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 4:51:00 PM

The point is that the wording in HR676 is such that it makes it more probable that the Illegal aliens will be covered.

No, sorry, that's merely your interpretation.

I read it to mean that if you show up without a card you must fill out an application for a card so that the services will be paid for. Clearly, if the services aren't paid for because you are ineligible, you'll need to cover the costs yourself.

if these 20 million people are already taking advantage of the present system what type of monetary impact do they make?

More than likely no noticable impact.

But you'll never understand...
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 65
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 4:55:36 PM
There is nothing in the bill that would prevent you from traveling elsewhere for treatment. If you're so wealthy that you prefer higher-priced insurance, likely you'll have enough to go get your problems solved elsewhere.

And as for the bypass in Canada, I have heard far more testimonials and anecdotes in support of the system, that conflict with your position, to accept your comments.

I don't live there, so I don't know personally.

Neither do you...
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 67
view profile
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 7:16:26 PM
AG wants to fight hard to prevent Canadian style UHC from coming to America???? She's badly outnumbered. Polls run anywhere from 60-75% of Americans FAVOR having UHC. Unfortunately the lobbyists and the rich have more say-so than the majority of Americans. Sadly, this nation has become a plutocracy, not a true democracy. If this was a true democracy, the US would be like all of the other democratic nations on this planet--we would have had UHC a long time ago, and people like AG would be in the distinct minority and be considered laughingstocks. In Canada, as I can see here, people who are against UHC are considered laughingstocks. It will be a good time in the USA to finally have what the majority of Americans want--the same kind of freedom from worrying about medical bankruptcy and the ability to obtain health care regardless of the cost that ALL other democracies have.

Let freedom ring!! Let's turn America back to a DEMOCRACY, not rule by the rich and the few.
Joined: 8/31/2006
Msg: 68
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 7:34:43 PM
There was a court case in New York where a guy stole bread because he was hungry. The Judge ordered him to pay $1 for stealing, and also everyone in the Court Room had to pay him $1 for not setting up some kind of civilized food program. I feel our Bills of Rights should have a right to for some type of food, and not to have to sleep on the sidewalk for those that are not able to work for a living--Healthcare? Seems to me food and shelter should come first, then healthcare, once you're not suffering from hunger.
Joined: 4/29/2006
Msg: 69
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 8:53:24 PM
"both systems have rediculous waiting periods but one of them gives you the freedom to take your business to the company that works harder for you"

What freedom is that?..The vast majority of people have managed care private health insurance through their employers...They cant change over to any new insurance company when they are dissatisfied because their employer often has one kind of insurance available to them...Often its the cheapest one, not the most efficient that works "harder" for you...People are screwed because they have no choice in the matter if they want to stay employed and have insurance..What makes you think a managed care beaurocracy is somehow "cheaper" and more "efficient" then a govt. program?..Both create waste but at least the govt. program is monitored and audited...Managed care ISNT so it practices unlimited spending with no checks and balances..So who is really wasting more money here??
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 71
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/29/2007 9:42:09 PM
private schools spend less money per student

That old yarn?

U.S. schools spend close to $60 billion annually to help the six million schoolchildren who have physical, emotional or learning disabilities. Private schools weed these students out through entrance exams.

Nor need private schools concern themselves with costly services for the millions of children who speak little or no English. Even the billions of dollars public schools spend on these much-needed services do not reflect the true cost: it is harder for these students to learn and for their teachers to teach both them and their classmates.


Rather than hire union-wage janitors as public schools do, private schools generally hire one janitor who supervises a corps of "work study" students who clean the school in exchange for tuition credit.

Since most private schools are faith-based, these institutions have a corps of priests, nuns, pastors or rabbis who provide inexpensive, skilled labor. Private schools also pay their teachers less, require more duties (yard duty, chaperone duty at sporting events or dances, etc.), and contribute dramatically less toward retirement benefits.


Private school parents tend to be more educated than public school parents and are more likely to speak English, enabling them to help students at home and work with teachers more effectively.


When the advantages are taken out of the comparison, who is really doing better, the public or the private school?

I have no idea. But let's stop comparing apples and oranges and look objectively at the many difficulties and disadvantages public schools face.

Nearly half of the schools participating in Milwaukee's private school choice program had to return money to the state last year - in two cases, more than $100,000 each - because, hard as they tried, they couldn't spend the $4,894 they were given to educate each of their choice students, records show.


"We don't have to pay for a huge administration and a lot of red tape," said Lois Maczuzak, an administrator at St. John Kanty School, 2840 S. 10th St., which spent $3,096 to educate each student, making it the lowest-cost school in the choice program.


"Our teachers sacrifice a whole lot in terms of their salaries," Maczuzak said. "I can't compete with MPS in payroll. Our teachers bring in a lot of materials on their own, and that helps to keep costs down as well."

At St. John Kanty, parents volunteer to supervise recess, lunch hour and field trips, eliminating the need for paid employees to do such non-teaching work. While the Archdiocese of Milwaukee provides some help in administering programs, the school is largely left to its own devices, Maczuzak said.

"At the Catholic schools, the buck stops here," Maczuzak said. "We don't have the costs that come with a lot of red tape, but we also are the ones who are responsible for what happens in our schools."


"I was just talking with a group of Catholic-school principals, and they are all wondering how they can increase teacher salaries without raising tuition for the non-choice students," said Dan McKinley, PAVE's executive director. "It's an interesting situation."

Los Angeles -- Catholic schools in Los Angeles effectively educate low- income and minority students at costs sharply lower than the Los Angeles Unified School District's and achieve a much lower dropout rate, according to a study released last week by a conservative think tank.


"They spend dramatically less money. Plus the kids who participate in this (scholarship) program are the kids . . . research has shown are the most likely to benefit from Catholic schools."


Public school supporters called the study biased. They noted that parents who send their students to Catholic schools are generally more committed to education and involved with their children.

Catholic schools can expel students much more easily, they pointed out, and Catholic schools also have limited special-education programs, which account for increasingly large portions of the budgets in public school districts.

Besides which, not all private schools "do more with less"
A new study of over 12 years of test scores and student data shows no advantage for poor urban children who choose private high schools over public schools.


The center took the recent studies, which controlled statistically for the impact of family factors, a step further by looking at student scores over a long period and examining where some of the kids ended up later in life. In most cases, private school graduates had no advantage.


Harold Wenglinsky of Columbia University, the author of the study, said his findings suggest parents and home life have even more powerful effects on school achievement — and the schools have less influence — than is commonly believed.

Parents, he said, may expect too much if they believe a private school education by itself better prepares kids academically.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 72
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/30/2007 4:13:46 AM
>>>They cant change over to any new insurance company when they are dissatisfied because their employer often has one kind of insurance available to them...

Yes, they can. Excluding the cases where Union Dues go towards healthcare, there is nothing stopping you from taking your business elsewhere.

>>>Often its the cheapest one, not the most efficient that works "harder" for you..

Funny how often people want blood from a stone- they want the cheapest healthcare, but they want it to the very best.

And how would you encourage the very best for the very least? Through capitalism- by reviewing the business you're investing in and going with the one that offers you the best for YOUR individual needs. A more free and less restricted society would naturally encourage business's to crop up that will meet you on your terms- a less free society, like one through universal healthcare, would discourage such competition through regulation.

>>>What makes you think a managed care beaurocracy is somehow "cheaper" and more "efficient" then a govt. program?

When has Government programs ever been superior to private ones, in cost, in efficentcy, in services private always seems to superior. An obvious example would be the Federal Post Office versus Private Post Offices, like FedEx and UPS.

>>>.Managed care ISNT so it practices unlimited spending with no checks and balances..

Having the Federal Government mandate what must be covered and what must not increases the costs of these business's, thereby discouraging competition and giving people less of a choice between insurance

But even then- lets say both systems equally suck ass- in universal healthcare, you have the deal with it and accept the bill. In a private system, if someone is pissing away your money, you could take your business who takes more care to your needs as a consumer. Choosing not to or preferring the company healthcare plan is neither an issue nor should it be relevant- there will always be people who are apathetic, and I nor you pay taxes to protect people from themselves.
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 73
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:50:38 AM
I won't go into all the reasons why but 2 months ago I lost my health care plan. Federal Employees Health Care Plan. Probably very similar to what AG has. A great plan for those fortunate enough to have it.

I developed a serious (life threatening), chronic illness and I'm now on medicare. The meds I take total over 1,600 dollars per month. I use generics when available but many of my meds don't have a generic counterpart. It took the Dr.s 3 months to finally find the meds that help me, so I cann't go fiddling around trying to find less expensive drugs that might work for me. Medicare's prescription plan will pay the first 2,500 (along with a hefty copay from me). After that there is what is called a $4,o50 doughnut. A gap in prescription drug coverage.

So here I am, what I guess would be considered a lower middle class person, make a little to much for anykind of government aid, but yet not enough to pay the high drug costs on my own, worrying how I'm going to come up with 4,050 to cover my drug costs for this year, and the higher costs over the years to come. To say nothing of the high copays, and the medical treatments and drugs medicare doesn't cover.

So what do I do ? Sell my house, wipe out what little savings I have , dip into my retirement fund ? (which by the way I would be taxed heavily on any early withdrawals. Lose I'ver worked for over the years due to high medical costs, and then apply for government assistance ? Many people are in this same situation.

I have always been for Universal Health Care, even when I had good coverage because I always realized that for most of us our health care coverage is tied into our employment, lose your employment, lose your health care. Become seriously ill with a chronic illness, lose your job and you lose your health insurance. Somehow that dosen't make sense.

If the government can provide great health care insurance for it's employees, I don't see why it cann't apply those same principals and provide great health care at a reasonable cost to the citizens of the USA.

I want to say to everyone who is against Universal Health Care because they think it should be covered through their employer or their spouse's employer to understand that their not having health care coverage is only a pay check away. Lose your job, lose your health care. Not a good system.

Please excuse any spelling errors. I'm to tired to even run spell check.
Joined: 12/10/2007
Msg: 74
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/30/2007 1:21:51 PM

average American should be able to purchase insurance at the same rates as current COBRA rates

Except that COBRA rates are typically highly inflated. In my particular case, the two times I have paid for COBRA, one was nearly $900/mo and one was nearly $600/mo. The actual amounts paid for the same exact insurance by my previous employers is less than $150/mo.

COBRA is a bullsh|t solution for any but the upper-middle class.
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 75
view profile
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 12/30/2007 3:21:03 PM
Nobody should have to raid their retirement funds for health insurance coverate.

We should have UHC for many many reasons, but a new one has come up with the discussion of COBRA and the lack of true, affordable portability when people change jobs. COBRA is very expensive! I had the option of continuing my coverage from my last job to the tune of $800 a month.

Capitalism is badly discouraged in the current system by making it difficult for people to venture out on their own. Many people are scared to go into business for themselves even if that's their true calling because they cannot afford the cost of health insurance for their families. With UHC more people would be able to take that risk. It is really anti-capitalist to have this greedy private insurance system taking away opportunities for others to go into business for themselves.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > FREE Federalized Health Care