There is a whole lot of what-if in this diatribe. What if my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle?
You're clearly dehydrated.
We already pay for the unhealthy. Wtf, the government has helped plenty. Furthermore, You are not taking into consideration the many who work for themselves. What do they do? I shouldn't have to worry that if I switch jobs, or lose my job, I will lose my insurance. We're better than this.
If you work for yourself then why should someone else have to pay for your healthcare? It makes zero sense. One major benefit for working with an employer is health care. You waive that when you decide to work for yourself. Why is it the federal government's responsibility to take care of you? Just for having a SS#? It isn't how life works, man.
Yet, in your mind leaving people underinsured and Americans to go bankrupt is not reprehensible.
We already spend more on our failed health care than countries with single pay do, why do you assume it would cost more? I've skimmed articles that say it would cost a lot less in the long run.
If I don't work for an employer, I don't get rewarded with the collective bargaining that a company has. I will be by myself. Furthermore, my rate will be much higher than if my employer matched me. I do not agree with allowing states to do there own health care coverage without be forced to do so. The Republicans have proven through Obamacare they cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the poor and most vulnerable in their states.
But you choose to be by yourself. I don't see how it is anyone else's problem.
Your comment punishes small business owners.
Agreed. Why pay for something that is more money and covers less overall?
You have trouble with facts and think Bernie is useful, yet you are telling me what is in my mind.
If it's a better value why is it mandatory?
Yet you're replying to me without understanding my position. Read the thread before you reply.
You saying Bernie is useless doesn't make it so. I literally gave you what you requested, links to supporting evidence, and you didn't even read them. You clearly don't know what a strawman is, as that's exactly what your argument presented. Again, who do you support? If you can't even tell us who you support then wtf are you doing here?
I read every one of them. Most, I have seen before. I even changed my position to reject the higher end estimates.
The federal government has bargaining power that states don’t, so you have it completely backwards
Because if it weren't, the wealthy/healthy people needed to subsidize it would simply continue to buy private insurance and the public healthcare system would quickly become overburdened and insolvent
Republican states can’t pay their bills anyway so liberal states have to do it for them so that argument is doa too