We already have universal access

Let's be honest...every governmental system has loopholes and someone always gets screwed. I think it is important for individuals to have insurance and to use it if need be; we are paying funds to stay insured. As a healthcare professional, I believe we should be concerned for individuals without insurance seeking medical attention. Are you suggesting we NOT have health insurance? Or just not overuse it? Also, those who do not have insurance or other financial means make more responsible choices with their bodies? I disagree. Yes, I am getting penalized because I'm healthy and others are using the money I've earned...I deal with it. Many hospitals are not allowed to deny healthcare to any patient -- no matter the financial situation. After-the-fact, in many cases, these programs pickup the rest of the bill the patient is unable to pay for; this program is abused! Unhealthy America is becoming more unhealthy and due to increasing healthcare costs, more individuals are seeking financial assistance. Those are the monies you're talking about. Also, I don't want to be receiving a pay cut anytime soon, but one reason for large healthcare bills is the institution's payroll and the costs of on-call healthcare versus 24-hour staffing. There's our problem...every hospital is increasing the number of staff members due to an increased need for patient care AND also offering more individuals financial assistance. SOOO, increase in unhealthy people, increase hospital staff, increase taxes for funding so we can satisfy the increased need for financial assistance, increase healthcare costs so hospitals aren't broke...What a mess! To solve the universal healthcare problem we need to...stop getting fat, exercise, quit eating french fries, and when you get a hangnail...DON'T go to the emergency room!

My apologies for the previous posters to this video. I meant to edit the video comments and hit delete. The site techs were able to retrieve the video, but not the string of responses...

So here's my response to cgloveguru concerning a person w/o gov't funded healthcare would experience if they had certain medical procedures would result in financial ruin, in which cgloveguru describes as "moraly reprehensible".

My response is: I hope I understood you right and I hope you take this right, but at the risk of sounding reprehensible - why is the American tax payer morally obligated to rescue a patient's finances? We've met our morale obligation...that person's alive - REJOICE!

MERenner: You said it!
I am suggesting health insurance is a good thing because everybody will get sick (the teeth thing was just to highlight my incentive to take better care b/c now I had to spend my own money.) I am suggesting people also be responsible with their money, spend less than they make and save for that rainy day, and spend some of that savings on health insurance. (previous posts that I accidently deleted) Once upon a time, the gov't feared we couldn't save money for retirement, so they invented social security. Make note: whatever the gov't runs becomes a monstrocity from its original design. The same would happen with health care. Thank you for your response.

You think you know what you are talking about, but obviously you don't. Many people do NOT have universal access to health care, including me. I do have access to basic services, but nothing more.

I am one of the milliions who cannot afford health insurance, but who do not qualify for public assistance. It has absolutely nothing to do with not brushing my teeth, or anything else. Entropy, dude. Bodies wear out, some at a much younger age.

I have always been very healthy, but now that I'm nearing 50, I pray every day that something doesn't go wrong with my body, because if it does, I'm screwed.

Sorry, but this sounds too much like Bush's comment that we already have health care, heck just go to an emergency room. Not a good plan Mr. President.

goodsnservices: I hear ya. It's a tough position to be in. I can only relate to the first half - Not affording it- me being the baby of 9 kids w/mom having 9 miscarriages and 1 still born we never had insurance (or other necessities). She was 46 when she had me. She can relate to your situation though. Somehow, it just worked out. But I was determined not to live with that much risk. So I figured the responsible thing to do was to live in a way to have food, clothing, shelter, transportation and INSURANCE. The food and transportation were rather meager at times...

Merener. The answer is simple. Because the idea that we have universal access is condescending to more than 45 million americans who have consistently fallen through the cracks. The average income of those 45 million is 45,000 dollars a year. They are middle class and they aren't lazy or irresponsible and yes you allready pay for them through increased premiums and you feel the force of their existence through the affect their bankruptcies have on the housing market among others. In fact today medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. and that is only the affect of those who actualy recieve treatment. The cost of those who die because they don't recieve needed procedures in incalculable. It is far cheaper and far more humane to ensure us all treatment. The Current system allready penalized the responsible.

it's not about penalizing anyone. it's about the fact that access to medical care is a basic human right. Every other country in the world recognizes this except the U.S.

The daughter of a janitor should have the same rights and access to the same health care options as the daughter of a stock broker.

Only in America's perverted system where lawmakers are owned by the drug and healthcare industry does the idea that healthcare is a commodity even exist.

You are right to a point - but...

"Universal access" during an emergency is extremely expensive in dollars and in pain/disability to the person who does not get care until it is an emergency. This past year at least 2 children DIED from tooth cavities that were not treated, became infected, and the infection went to their brains. The surgery, drugs, and hospitalization during their final weeks of life was absurdly expensive and they died.

Second, no matter how responsible I am about being willing to pay for my health care if I have had a previous illness there are insurance companies that will not insure me. No matter how much I save on my own I can't afford a catastrophic health situation - treating breast cancer can cost $500,000 - and that is a case in which treatment is relatively quick and the person returns to health. I can be responsible about saving money in case my car breaks down and has to be replaced, I can be responsible about saving money to handle home repairs, but I cannot save enough money to handle outrageous health insurance costs.

I think that all people should be expected to pay premiums (taxes) into a universal health care system that matches their income. Responsible behavior should be rewarded in some way. Still, the conservative meme that "personality responsibility" is THE key to morality is bull -- personality responsibility is necessary, but NOT sufficient to be a moral person. I have to be responsible for myself AND for the people around me - am I my brother and sister's keeper - I was told as a child that I am. What were you told?

Being responsible with one's body is absolutely no guarantee that one will never be ill, so I find your argument to be false or misguided, and to be slightly tainted by selfishness. Some people who are not responsible with their body never get ill, either. Universal health care is based on solidarity, and solidarity is a sine qua non and basic element of a functional society, a cement of society without which greed will rule and destroy.

We need universal health care in America. WE NEED IT.

A Solomon-Like Decision

Again the Rove-Cheney-Bush Republican Administration has wrestled with the momentous decision of which core constituency to serve. The competition was between long-term and short-term financial advantage.

In the case of the long-term advantage, the Oil constituency requires a large pool of healthy youth to provide adequate cannon fodder for their quest for domination of all of the world’s oil reserves. This holy quest will continue for as long as oil remains an attractive commodity. Peoples who possess oil reserves will not gladly surrender what is, in many cases, their only national treasure. They will resist to the point of military and violent resistance. To overcome this selfish resistance our oil interests require the use of military force to maintain their economic dominance: they have concluded that it is more cost-effective to steal foreign oil rather than to buy it. For this task they need a strong military establishment. Conquest of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and so forth will require a strong, unending commitment of cannon fodder and treasure

Short-term economic advantage requires nurture and protection of the Insurance industry. This is a rich source of campaign financing for Republicans. Their ability to overcome the popular will depends upon the purchase of political representatives. Electoral success depends on the availability of campaign money from their corporate constituency. The Insurance industry has labored valiantly to fight off the threat of competition in the health insurance market. The most serious threat to their oligopoly to date has been the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Rove-Cheney-Bush has honored its commitment to Insurance to thwart the popular will to expand the coverage of the SCHIP law by the rare exercise of the VETO. Insurance correctly sees such programs as threats to its profits from commercial health insurance. In each case of social control of health security, such programs as Medicare have proven indispensable to the people. I have NEVER heard a working-class senior wish for the repeal of Medicare; in fact, their complaints are that Medicare coverage is too limited.

So, there is being mounted an effort in the House to override the veto.
If you want to have your will heeded it is time to contact your Congressional Representatives and demand an override vote.

“Reward your friends and punish your enemies”!


Robert D. Eckel
1775 Meadow Rd.
Southampton, PA 18966
(215) 355-5925
BobEckel@Verizon.net

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by penalizing those who are responsible with their bodies. Is it correct to say that the people who are healthy are being penalized because they don't have any reason to utilize it, or did I miss the point completely? If thats what you meant then wouldn't the reward be that you're healthy and happy?

In this the most affluent country in the world there are people that can't afford healthcare. That is a disgrace. And lets not forget the millions that aren't getting enough healthy food to eat. (Yes, in the USA). I've heard that in some parts of the country canned pet food is selling in a higher proportion to the pet population because it is cheaper then food for humans.

My point is that I favor Socialized Medicine because having a healthy population benefits us all and we should be willing to pay for it.
I made no reference to penalizing people for trying to stay healthy.
I smoke and it's about as stupid as I can get. Should I be oenalized? I guess it will eventualy catch up with me.

BTW: some comments that I have received to this and other posts seem to completely miss my points. Has anyone else had that experience?

This take on Health care gives me a glimpse into the minds of those of you who voted for our current president.

I feel that this stance is selfish, lazy, and completely illogical.

How are those of us who "take care of ourselves" i.e. floss, penalized by universal health care? If we had universal health care, we would all reap the benefits on an individual and national scale.

Me personally, I own a small business. I do not have health insurance. Being 26, it's simply not a priortity, and I really cannot afford it.

Tell me, what is going to happen to me? What will happen if I have an accident or am diagnosed with an "expensive" illness?

I will die or go bankrupt. How American is that?

Right. We have a system. And it's broken. On any given Saturday night in LA, every hospital emergency room goes on diversion - they just can't take any more patients. Many of the people going to the emergency room are using it as a first resort for minor problems, because they can't afford insurance. This has got to be just about the most expensive way to provide health care that we could possibly construct.

Looking at the current health care "system" from both the consumer perspective where I see premiums and copays going up at multiple times the rate of inflation and from the provider's point of view, where doctors and hospitals are going out of business because they're getting paid less every year, there's only one place I can see where all that money must be going. This insurance "system" is just another scheme by which wealth is being accumulated by the few at the expense of the many.

I agree with you Waterhouse. It just doesn't add up. The bottom line is that the current system is profitable, but the questions is who is it profitable for? In the end we are all paying with both our money and our health. WHAT A CROCK.

According to a new Consumer Reports study, the median household income for uninsured Americans is almost $59,000/year. The national median is $48,200 (before-tax gross, not net) and the average cost of health insurance through an employer (the cheapest kind if you can get it) is $12,400/year (premiums only, not counting co-pays, deductibles, things that aren't covered). My friends' daughter ws diagnosed with leukemia and their premiums went from $12,000 to $46,000/year (or their daughter.... dies?) Even Superman (Christopher Reeves) was cut off by the insurance company his grandfather co-founded. What planet are you living on?

Well, I am 50 and I am paying Blue Cross and my premium just went from 200 something to $450 per month.

Do any of you folks know how much Prescription Medicine really costs?

I have Asthma, my Advair inhaler costs $214 per month..2 puffs a day for 30 days...

With Blue Cross it still costs me more that $100!

Last December, I was hospitalized for almost a day.
I had a chest pain...I told them it was my asthma...

And it was....

I never got treated for my asthma...

Thankfully, I had health insurance but the real total was over $4000.00

Anyone who says we shouldn't have health insurance for everyone is just not thinking straight. Funny thing
about these folks who can't stand the idea of
"Socialized Medicine" they are usually Republicans and usually say they are Christian....

Who was the first Socialist I ask?

Jesus Christ.

One more interesting item is that they seem to
LOVE their Social Security checks every month.

That's "Socialism" too!

universal health care is NOT a "human" right. it may be a "right" voted on or subsidized by a CULTURE or a SOCIETY, but you're way off base if you think "being a human being" grants the right. like anything and everything else, if supplied "for free" it will, i guarantee you, be abused, and many more will suffer as a result of the overuse and abuse of such a system..... any system works that way....... now, i can argue that taking care of people's health and helping them stay healthy is a good idea... one i'd even be willing to support, but the problem quickly comes up as to how much "support" is "enough" and can we afford to do "everything possible for everyone at all times" without creating some new problems that really screw up our good intentions? ....... watch out for what you wish for......

hey, PatrickEdwardMurray 6 minutes ago .... the socialism of Social Security was sold as a "you put it in, we'll take care of you when you need to take it out" lie by FDR and his cronies. read about it. but politicians you voted for increased the payouts without commensurate increases in pay-in [politically normal thing to do...] so now there are some serious doubts as to the long-term viability of the SocSec system. if i'd been allowed to have an IRA from Day 1 of my employment 40 or so years ago, and the maximum abount i could put in would have been indexed to inflation or anything else, i'd have put so much money away that i could easliy be willing to sign away any and all government payments. ........ but it wasn't. my money was taken by the government and NOT invested in anything, but passed on to earlier retirees. none when into any investments that would have made US industries stronger or companies more productive or created any new inventions or health discoveries..... it came from my wallet and went into someone else's check..... and no politician who ever hopes to be re-elected will ever tell you that truth.

Hey Plusaf, Ronald Reagan raised Social Security taxes by almost 25% when he was President, with the explanation that the "Baby Boomer" generation would have to "pay ahead" for their retirement because the "pay-as-you-go" system wouldn't work for them. Then he took what he took from lower-and-middle-class-only working people's wage taxes and gave it to the wealthy (but only the extremely wealthy) in an income tax break reduction from 72% to 33% on everything over a bazillion dollars (don't remember the exact figure where the break started, but it was very high). Do you know what percentages you have to tax Joe Blows' to make up for it, if you choose to tax Bill Gates' even 1% (let alone 39%) less? Sort of like "Robin Hood In Reverse", only no Republican will ever explain to anyone HOW Reagan "cut taxes and increased tax revenues" as if by magic(!) The Democrats have been putting this SSI money back (remember Gore's "lock box" that no one understood what he meant?) and the Republicans have been taking it back again and giving it out in Corporate Welfare and tax breaks to those who already have a leg up (so they can "trickle down" on us). You and I appear to be living in Parallel Simultaneous Worlds. The whole Social Security system would work great, just like it used to, if the Republicans would quit screwing it up on purpose. Medicare too. If Gore had been given the office that he won, that money would be back in the Treasury as we type.

well, first, spoon, Reagan may have asked for the taxes, but Congress wrote and passed the laws. RR just signed them. Congress could have done lots of different things........ second, "no Republican will ever explain".... TO YOUR SATISFACTION, ever. that's a given. there are no words that will convince you. that's why it's fun for me to peddle my ideas here..... like these... http://www.plusaf.com/soapbox/flattax.htm , which you will never read fully or believe or accept............ and then you blokes wonder why i refer to you as "fundamentalists" and disagree with me... richa accused me of being a lobbyist for the "sick care industry." .................. wow.... you got me dead to rights..... sure i am......... after a BSEE from a respected college that taught how to analyze data and draw conclusions, followed by fourteen years in semiconductor device applications, where it was important to analyze data, draw conclusions and make recommendations to customers, followed by about twenty years of minicomputer sales support and marketing, where i learned how to use data and information to show customers how to improve their profits and solve problems at their companies using my company's products...... and along the way discovered how mis-use of data caused some real morons at my same company to pee away millions of dollars of potential profits in order to maintain their personal power structures and perpetuate organizations which should have been done away with....................... yep, i'm an apologist for the healthcare industry................................. and he/she won't believe THAT, either, because of their own "i'm right, you're wrong and don't confuse me with facts or information" religion. ............... keep up the good work. try to prove me wrong..... LOL!

You're a "religous" man but think helping out the unfortunate is wrong? I am confused.

The whole idea of "universal" healthcare is to stop the drain on the emergency rooms that are currently overwhelmed. To ensure all people get preventative care so that a heart attack is not the first time someone sees a doctor. What you are failing to see is that saving a person from an acute health impact does't stop with one treatment--many times there are long hospital stays and follow up visits that people can't afford.

We all get one opportunity to live on this earth--making an effort to help out our sisters and brothers is not going to "kill" anyone--just the lack of caring will do that.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. THIS IS FAKE. FAKE FAKE. Notice how all the 'anti' posts (the ones who the majority does not support here), all use the same cameras, same handheld shaky shots. Same background (kind of looks like the AL GORE background, hmmm)

Stephanielh is the same background, same shakey camera. And there are others.

My guess is that Current TV is planting them to stiumulate discussion. Am I right? If I am, it's pretty disingenuous.

magzilla... was this in reply to me, plusaf? You're a "religous" man but think helping out the unfortunate is wrong? I am confused. The whole idea of "universal" healthcare is to stop the drain on the emergency rooms that are currently overwhelmed. To ensure all people get preventative care so that a heart attack is not the first time someone sees a doctor. What you are failing to see is that saving a person from an acute health impact does't stop with one treatment--many times there are long hospital stays and follow up visits that people can't afford. We all get one opportunity to live on this earth--making an effort to help out our sisters and brothers is not going to "kill" anyone--just the lack of caring will do that. ...................


..................... please clarify in your posts. the software at this site doesn't clearly tag threads and who's replying to whom or which posting.............................
no, i'm not religious, and i certainly do believe in helping out the less fortunate. i do it very often, of my own free will. i also think it's stupid to not help them.... but this is an Al Gore site. it will be most frequented by people who share his beliefs and will vote, as for the video of this thread, 90-10 against it. it's like carry coals to Newcastle or selling ice to Eskimos. this site will attract people who agree with its premises and will reject like a bunch of antibodies any voices who act, think or speak differently. ...... i come here to see what your discussions and arguments are like, and i'm not impressed........ i'm not a democrat OR republican. ...... i find at least half of the beliefs of EACH party to be completely repugnant and incompatible with my personal beliefs, but i'm always on the lookout for some new information which i can put into my mental meatgrinder to see if it makes sense................. the problem for me here is that there's nothing new. you say the same things over and over again that have been said for decades, and when i look at history and evidence that some of the plans, ideas, processes and conclusions don't work, it doesn't matter whether i agree with y'all or not; you'll keep agreeing with each other and keep calling me names to prove i'm wrong..... and i've watched this since i voted for Eisenhower. :).... or thereabouts........ it's all about belief and agreement. you all agree with each other, whether it's global warming or war or health care. you could care less if the late Milton Friedman presented any kind of cogent argument for or against your views. you won't change your minds at all, and i think that's very sad........... but keep watching. stick around a few more decades...... see what works and what doesn't work and what promises don't get kept and why and most of all, keep an eye on the "Law of Unintended Consequences...." , where a law gets passed in order to implement some lofty goal and the end-results some years later are the exact opposite of the original intention...... enjoy!........ and i'm an individual, not a plant or shill, and nobody's paying me to do this..... i do it for my own education and amusement, and you probably won't see MY shaky video here because, as the saying goes, i've got a GREAT voice AND a great FACE..... for RADIO. :)

an estimated 18,000 people died last year from health problems that could have been avoided if they had had health insurance.

Elizabeth Anna Hall
HealthCare-NOW! Midwest

ps. plusaf, please research the volumes of cogent opposition to Milton Friedman's theories.

I wonder how much those preventative care visits cost compared to the emergency situations that arise with out them. The way you describe it, having fall back emergency coverage w/out preventative care is an incentive for people to take care of their own health. But the preventative visits to doctors are exactly how people learn to take better care of themselves. Where did you learn to floss? If your lucky your parents taught you. Many aren't so lucky and need a doctor to teach them better health practices before they have a health issue costing 10's of thousands of dollars that could have been prevented by preventative care costing only hundreds.

That said, I think the movie 'Sicko' should be double featured with the movie 'Super Size Me' with out exception for all viewers.

There you go again, Darino.
(Did you like that? So Reaganesque!)

You said:

My response is: I hope I understood you right and I hope you take this right, but at the risk of sounding reprehensible - why is the American tax payer morally obligated to rescue a patient's finances? We've met our morale obligation...that person's alive - REJOICE!

Let's go at it this way, Darino or others with such views:
You said:
Why is the American taxpayer morally obligated to pay for:
police, FBI, CIA, the military, fire departments, local governments, state governments, Federal government, politicians, White House dinners for the socialistic inhabitants and guests of the White House, football stadiums ad infinaseum.. ?
Then you say: We've met our morale obligation...that person's alive - REJOICE!
Have you? Have we? How do you REALLY know that the person will survive the ongoing dismantlement of our Medicare system, or HMO-type private-payer systems when corporations just want to squeeze us to death with benefit reductions and extracting its obsene profits?

You also said:
Make note: whatever the gov't runs becomes a monstrocity from its original design. The same would happen with health care.
Really? Does that happen when fat-cat Republicans and Democrats are bought out by health corporation lobbyists? Or when Republicans preach about the holiness of pure capitalism and small business and "free enterprise"? Or when the same says "Government is inefficient" and then they go out of their way to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy? They get into office and then "make it so", as Capt Picard would say so slickly.
Do you want to talk to me about the HUGE savings and loan debacle in the 1980's, or the private pension plans bell-ups without making those jerks pay their agreed upon share for their own employees, or maybe you're only young enough for the Wall-Street darling, ENRON? Are greedy, inefficient corporations really the apple of you eye?


Why folks? Is every thing you spend your money on involving SOLELY PURE CAPITALISM? (If you think so, rent the DVD: Corporation; then tell me about it, OK?)
And would we REALLY want it that way?
I damn sure wouldn't. And I would definitely lay money that you wouldn't either if you needed those services and just didn't seem to have the money to pay for them!

I'll listen to your rebuttal if you write me at Lapinex@comcast.net . Just don't sell anymore crazy; we're fully stocked on crazy in the middle and poor classes already.

Finally, folks . . .

For those who actually say things like:

I don't want universal health care because I'll have to pay for others' bad genetics, terrible lifestyles, ...
I say: DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE BEST STRATEGY OF HEALTH CORPORATIONS AND THEIR BOUGHT POLITICIANS IS TO:

have you be divided and conquered? Instead of just everyone being in one SINGLE-RISK POOL of superbly health-care-covered citizens and on a ONE-govt payor system IF WE FIGHT OUR GOVT FOR IT . . . we had rather argue over this arrogant "I'm only responsible for myself and no one else" platform to the delight of lobbyists and legislators?

C'mon now! You can buy into the multi-million dollar health corporation sponsored propaganda broadcasts (as when the Clintons' and others tried to do something about it (with a bad approach to a jeering bought Congress)), OR
you can realize that it is much, much EASIER to take on our Fed Govt than huge numbers of private insurers with their huge number of (uncomparable, benefit-ebbing) HMO-type plans!

And if you, unlike me, have been EVER been able to live a life where you didn't depend on your relatives/neighbors/church members/other citizens ad infinitim and ALWAY pulled yourself by YOUR OWN BOOTSTRAPS with no help from another caring American,

I don't think you find it comfortable to be in a debate where you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and continuously used (inherited or uninherited) enoumous wealth and servants to pay your own damn way!

No wonder you cannot relate to the rest of us Americans who haven't had the fortune to live a charmed life as you must have had! (Never got a govt-subsidized loan--NEVER, never got a favor from a a friend--OR the government?

Obviously, when you were born, you paid your parents for creating you, the obstetrician that delivered you, the nurse who kept you well and cared for you, your mumsy for suckling you, the clerk who inked your feet and hands and stamped them into your record. Get real! If you actually believe that J. Donne's famous integrative caring for all people* does not relate to you, you are an anomaly trying to impose your greedy vested economic system on the middle and poor economic classes, and while you definitely have a right to your opinion, I hope people realize the con you are trying to pull on the rest of us.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind... John Donne

Lapinex@comcast.net aka mike
Please pardon the spelling; no spell check and too damn tired. Also, please pardon any inconsequential errors I have made in conveying this crucial message to all Americans not boastful of their "successful business" or those with inherited wealth that they often keep close to their estates.

Personal responsibility is all well and good but your argument takes into account neither the wide array of genetically and environmentally based maladies nor the vast body of research that correlates freely available preventative care with overall health outcomes.

What differentiates the majority of European countries, with their significantly lower rates of infant mortality and maternal death in childbirth from the United States? Universal Health care!

What is it that gives those same countries longer and healthier life spans in spite of higher rates for smoking and other negative lifestyle "choices"? Universal Health care.

Universal health care, especially freely available preventative care helps educate the individual about their risks and how to best control them and helps identify problems BEFORE they become life-threatening and expensive.

Emergency services are inefficient and expensive providers of basic services and cannot help improve quality of life through education and prevention the way that regular physicians, nurses and clinics can in a preventative care setting.

All of that leaves out the extraordinary time and money that must be spent with our fractured system for paying for health care. It is expensive without delivering the level of care offered by much more efficient systems.

And, as one who has lived and worked under a variety of health care regimes, I can tell you that you do not need "socialized" medicine without "choice". In Germany we chose our doctor ourselves and switched when we felt like it. Here in the US our doctors go in and out of network regularly and become unavailable or prohibitively expensive. With our family of four and supposedly excellent insurance, I spend between 3 and 5 hours per month dealing with health insurance related issues. Far more than I actually spend dealing with doctors, as we have no major medical issues. There are alternatives to our current broken system.

Above all else, the moral imperative in the world's - still - richest nation to provide adequate basic services to ALL its citizens relegates the issues above to the realm of ancillary benefits. Basic health care is a right, not a simple commodity!