Lots of things are complicated - that does not put them beyond understanding.
Please don't put words in my mouth - the only objection you provided was that the report was from Canada.
You seem to be making some kind of insinuation - why don't you just state what you mean in plain terms?
Do you have absolutely no problem with letting adults who will never have your abilities or your opportunities, suffer the consequences?
When health insurance is employer provided, isn't that a problem?
1. Not beyond understanding, but more hard to understand. And judging by the simplistic responses it's evident that bar isn't very high. When I say "it's complicated" what I really mean is "please try and think at least one move ahead."
2. At the most I reorganized your words.
3. Fair enough. It's been my experience that the overwhelming majority of these "research groups" including recently some sterling examples on the global warming side, are bought and paid (financed by or hold allegiances to) special interest or government groups. In which case they are flawed by design. Studies (independent of course
) have shown this time and again. You tell me, who's financing and motivating this research? Is there some rich billionaire out there who really wants to know, so he finances research? I'm sure there are some, but they're very few. Many are financed through special interests, government, or academia which taints them with the politics of their institution. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We might get smaller or bigger portions, but it's always paid for by it's very existence.
4. Yes I do. It makes me sad they've been led down this primrose path by those who have used and abused them by telling them the government owes them healthcare, or the police can protect them, or any of those types of promises. There is no utopia. I want to help them, but mostly those who would follow, by showing them the truth so they can select alternative routes. And yes my heart goes out to them. But not enough to take money from your pocket to buy it for them. I respect your pockets and what it took for you to fill them however full they might be. I only ask for the same in return.
5. Not at all. Because it shouldn't be. At this time, according to the Census ONLY 55% of Americans get their health insurance through their employer. It used to be MUCH less than that. It started out as a fringe benefit during WWII when we had so many men at war, companies needed to compete for scarce labour. Because of existing caps on salaries and other benefits health insurance was added on as a fringe benefit. Not a right, not as direct compensation, but as a minor benefit to entice new employees.
The NRLB later found it should be taxed as a "fair part" of their wages because of extreme pressures by special interests groups aligned with.. well.. you can find that answer yourself, I'd had to be labelled a nutcase..
Health insurance as a employee provided benefit would have been dropped right there if not for these same special interest groups who started offering tax breaks to employers to keep it on.
And it's all history from there.. Employers started health insurance as they would any other promotional means to lure in workers.. and special interest groups turned it into an expected right.
So.. it's not a problem because it never should have been. Many who are self-employed and run their own businesses such as photography studios buy 100% of their own health coverage. I see no reason why, if wages are properly adjusted, we can't do that now. And I'd prefer it.