Why do liberals whine for UHC when over 40 states are creating programs

[HenryHyde]

to prove low income health insurance? This doesn't even get into the fact that the government will provide Medicaid for anyone who is disabled due to an illness.

[squidbilly50]

Bullsh!t, source it otherwise you're lying, try being just on the cusp sometime @sshole, walk in their shoes you self centered little bast@rd

[LeaveittoBeaver]

If I had medical coverage my first wife wouldnt have died at 29 leaving me with an 8 year old daughter to raise on my own. I didnt qualify for the low income medical programs and I didnt have the money to buy the insurance on my own.

Now I have declared bankruptcy, lost my home, lost my wife, and my dog ran away too (I wouldnt have even had a dog if it werent for my republican MIL, but I dont blame that on Reps, just her).

[KiranC]

If you cared only about the poor and the disabled then we would maintain the status quo. Universal Health Care is a better deal for all Americans, rich, poor, healthy and unhealthy than the current system Countries with Universal health care spend less on administration and more on health care.

You are thinking private sector because it has the profit motive can deliver health care at lower prices and better results. For health care, the laws of economics are against you.

For company to make a profit, they must receive more in premiums than they pay out. To cover the costs of those who cannot live without health care premiums must be high. If health care could attract those who are healthy, their premiums would cover the others. No insurance company can lower premiums enough to attract buyers who are healthy because those in the pool are high-cost patients. The premiums are always high and some will be unable to afford insurance. Without employers paying for health insurance for high and low cost insurees, the market for health insurance would collapse.

The value of UH is spread of risk and cost across many people.

I stole my analysis from the "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Hartford. His analysis based on economic theories in the link below.

Even if you got rid of all government healthcare programs, our problems with healthcare would be the same.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/public.html

[whimsy]

It would be far more cost effective to have one single-payer rather than 50 unique, and repetitive systems.

Further, with UHC, Medicare and Medicaid can dissappear, further reducing costs.

[Independant]

Obviously you don't know crap about the health care system.

[InfernalDisaster]

Liberals don't care about people's health and liberals don't care about rational solutions.

This isn't *socialist* enough and its not costing the taxpayers the trillions of dollars they would like.

All liberals care about is socialism and building their dream socialist-welfare dystopia where everyone is equally poor and slaves to the government for whatever meager sustenance a collapsed economy can provide.

The rhetoric of "liberals care," is one of the biggest lies in politics today.

If there is one thing about liberalism that one must understand is this:

Liberals want a country where everyone but a few elite in power are totally dependent on the government for *all* their needs. A country where "individualism" is replaced by a herd mentality.

Most liberals are either to stupid or too blind to see destruction their ideology seeks to inflict on America.

Why?

Because the idea of living in a society where someone else is taking care of you from cradle to grave and where you don't have to do anything but exist, is a powerful opiate.

There are too many people in this country who would rather do nothing for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

[AdamL]

They need some reason to socialize federal government.