Hi [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]
With all the political and financial pull the Democrat Politicians have
through their party, corporate ties, and supporters of ACA,
why can't the same negotiated group rates and terms of insurance
be set up WITHOUT signing names to the "business contract"
of citizens who DIDN'T agree to be compelled to purchase under such plans.
Wouldn't you be horrified if a housing plan was created
to cover a portion of everyone's housing, but people who didn't agree to be
part of the pool lost freedom to invest their money directly into their
own housing plans and coops, and instead were fined if they didn't
buy into the larger group's pool they were forced into by law?
Why not just have the members who AGREE to be part of that pool chip in?
So the coverage offered is proportional to the people who participate
WITHOUT forcing anyone in who wants to invest in a different pool and plan?
Isn't that more natural and sensible?
(And I'm not just throwing this out there as a hypothetical argument.
I really have been asking support of fellow liberals to use the Democrat Party
structure to set this up, to shift the ACA structures over to the Democrat Party
who support singlepayer and make taht system work for people who want it to work.
and leave out people who want other free market systems through their own
networks or party. I really am pushing to find people willing to take on this
approach so everyone can pursue the plans for health care they believe in. I think it's fair.)
I've got insurance for the first time in years and yes, it's affordable.
I even have dental coverage.
What's really cool is if I get sick ... I mean, REALLY sick, they cannot drop me, nor can they stop paying when I reach some "cap."
Good times!