Uncontrolled health care
Uncontrolled health care
HealthCare4All PA has released an economic impact study that confirms a single-payer health care system is viable in Pennsylvania.
Although confusion reigns supreme in the health insurance/health care arena, we have a comprehensive plan covering health, dental, vision, prescriptions, mental health services and more. The plan is affordable, publicly funded and privately delivered. Under the plan, state residents are free to go to any hospital and make health-care decisions based on conversations with doctors of their choice.
Unfortunately, this doesn't exist yet. But it can if we demand it.
Uncontrolled, for-profit health insurance costs affect every decision a business owner makes regarding job creation, competition and reinvestment. Health insurance costs steal discretionary income from businesses and families and affect the budget of every municipality and school district. According to a 2009 study in the American Journal of Medicine, medical bills cause 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies.
Who says we the people can't have affordable, comprehensive coverage? The health insurance industry, Big Pharma and their lobbyists in Congress — that's who.
We never believed them and commissioned a study to prove our point. To see our study go to HealthCare4AllPA.org.
Everybody in! Nobody out!
The writer is the president of the Northwest Chaper of HealthCare4All-PA.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Why the difference?
- Arnold must cut police force
- Pa.’s ‘safety laws’
- Right to veto
- No ‘pass’ for Obama
- UMW fighting EPA regulations
- PETA & its tactics II
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- Today’s technology
- Focusing on curriculum
- Being a volunteer firefighter